Andrew S. Cirbo - Page 7
- 6 -
Petitioner claims that he “did not receive a dime of commission”,
from Investments or Donlon, in connection with the policies.
At trial, respondent called Donlon as a witness. Other than
Donlon’s belief that petitioner would not have agreed to
Investments’ using his insurance license for free, there is no
evidence that petitioner actually received a fee from Investments
for the use of his license in the sale of policies for NACOLAH.
Even if petitioner did receive a fee from Investments, the
amount that was actually paid is unknown because Investments did
not issue to petitioner a Form 1099 for 2003. Donlon testified
that he did not remember how petitioner was paid, and he
“estimated” that petitioner was paid a fee between $2,000 to
$3,000 for the use of his insurance license. Donlon’s testimony,
however, was not supported by any documentation.
Accordingly, the Court finds that petitioner is not liable
for the 2003 deficiency and section 6662(a) accuracy-related
penalty because respondent has failed to satisfy his burden of
production with respect to the deficiency and the Form 1099-MISC
under section 6201(d).
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: November 10, 2007