- 42 -
must determine the nature of those payments. The record discloses
that Mr. Palmer required Olin Ordnance to pay him the Loomis
residence monthly payment as a condition to his accepting a
consulting position at its Marion plant. The record also estab-
lishes that at no time did Olin Ordnance receive a leasehold or
any other interest in the Loomis residence in exchange for the
Loomis residence monthly payments. Finally, the Marion
plant/Palmer consulting agreement, as well as the July 1995
amendment to that agreement, included the requirement that Olin
Ordnance pay Mr. Palmer the Loomis residence monthly payment in
paragraph 5 entitled “CONSULTING FEES”.
Based on our examination of the entire record in this case,
we find that the $5,100 of Loomis residence monthly payments that
Mr. Palmer received during 1995 from Olin Ordnance constitutes
nonemployee compensation to Mr. Palmer for that year.22 Conse-
quently, we sustain respondent’s determination to increase peti-
tioners’ Schedule C gross receipts for 1995 by an additional
$5,100.
To reflect the foregoing and the concessions of petitioners,
Decision will be entered for
respondent.
22We have considered all of the contentions and arguments of
petitioners that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be
without merit.
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Last modified: May 25, 2011