Roblene, Inc. - Page 13




                                       - 13 -                                         

          same period the salaries and wages paid to employees for each               
          year was zero dollars, with the exception of 1987 in which                  
          petitioner reported $801.01 as salaries and wages.  Thus,                   
          petitioner reported that it did not pay either Robert or Charlene           
          Peers any compensation for their services as officers of                    
          petitioner, and that petitioner paid only $801.01 as salaries and           
          wages for the years at issue.                                               
               Rather than treating the remuneration of Robert and Charlene           
          Peers as compensation paid to officers or as salaries and wages             
          paid to employees, petitioner treated payments to the Peerses as            
          commissions paid to independent contractors.  Petitioner's                  
          corporate income tax returns, Forms 1120, for the years at issue,           
          indicate that the commissions paid to nonemployees who were                 
          treated by petitioner as independent contractors for each year              
          were as follows:                                                            
                         Year         Commissions                                     
                         1987           $45,000                                       
                         1988           68,000                                        
                         1989           67,000                                        
                         1990           65,800                                        
          We note that petitioner alleged no facts in its petition, its               
          amended petition, or its second amended petition to challenge the           
          treatment of the amounts as payments to independent contractors,            
          which treatment was clearly described in respondent's final                 
          revocation letter.                                                          






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011