- 8 - As I mentioned in our telephone conversation, Michael handled workshops and attended many outside meetings and seminars representing The Corben Institute. The biggest part of life insurance sales is getting in front of people who need life insurance or people who can recommend to others to buy life insurance from us, Michael was a large part of our success. Michael was paid $5,000 a month, which was based on our life insurance sales. We are in the Life Insurance business, all of our income comes from commissions. Everyone in the office was asked to do other jobs from time to time but everyone knew we live and die based on commissions from life insurance sales. It is quite evident, therefore, that petitioner’s work with Corben was not devoted to one insurance company, and, moreover, petitioner was required to perform other duties for Corben beyond selling insurance. Additionally, the statement establishes that petitioner was not considered an employee by Corben. Petitioner’s earnings from Corben were reflected on Forms 1099, which indicate that petitioner was considered to be self-employed and not an employee. The Court holds, therefore, that petitioner was not an employee of Corben, nor was he a statutory employee.3 Petitioner was engaged in a self-employment activity, and, as such, his net earnings from that activity were subject to self- employment tax. Respondent, therefore, is sustained in 3The Court notes, however, that there are certain facets of petitioner’s relationship with Corben that would indicate an employer-employee relationship, such as the fact that petitioner was paid $5,000 per month rather than commissions, and that Corben had some control over petitioner, such as his required participation in seminars and marketing promotions. The Court does not consider these factors as overriding.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011