- 15 -
labor”, and these commission payments derive from the “carrying
on” of petitioner’s business as an independent insurance agent
with Conseco.
In the present case, the renewal commission payments reflect
renewed policies that were originally sold by petitioner as a
representative, or one of his subordinate representatives, on
behalf of Conseco in years dating back to 1985. The amounts of
the renewal commission payments, received after termination of
petitioner’s marketing agreement with Conseco, are calculated
based upon the premiums received before petitioner’s termination.
Unlike in Jackson, the renewal commission payments themselves and
the amounts of such payments actually arise from petitioner’s
business activity. See Jackson v. Commissioner, supra at 132.
Additionally, unlike in Jackson, petitioner in the present
situation had a vested right to the renewal commission payments,
which consisted of an identifiable monetary amount. See id.
Further, the renewal commission payments are disbursed not
pursuant to a termination agreement but per the Marketing
Agreement, without regard to whether petitioner was still
employed by Conseco. Petitioner received the same renewal
commission payments during his employment with Conseco and paid
self-employment tax on those such payments. Like Lencke, the
renewal commission payments retain the same character of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011