Nancy L. and Gerald L. Harper - Page 8




                                        - 7 -                                         
          income at the time of the offsets.  Cox v. Commissioner, T.C.               
          Memo. 1996-241; cf. Warden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-165.            
               In this case, Mrs. Harper continued to earn commissions on             
          policies that she had sold during her affiliation with Primerica            
          through August of 2003.  However, instead of paying these                   
          commissions to Mrs. Harper “by check”, Primerica diverted the               
          commissions to accounts showing balances owed by Mrs. Harper for            
          the advances and expenses payments previously described.  We                
          believe that based on all of the evidence presented, that when              
          Primerica previously made advances to Mrs. Harper, she was not              
          taxed on those advances because the advances were loans secured             
          and payable through future earned commissions.  Beaver v.                   
          Commissioner, supra; Diers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-229.            
               Although the record before us is devoid of any contract that           
          may have existed between Mrs. Harper and Primerica, we are                  
          convinced from our review of the detailed monthly statements of             
          accounting maintained by Primerica, and illustrated at Exhibit 5-           
          J, that under the system that Primerica used to account for its             
          agents’ commissions, advances Primerica paid to Mrs. Harper were            
          actually loans to be offset directly by future earned income.               
               As evidence for this conclusion, we point to the fact that             
          Mrs. Harper carried over a negative balance in her commission               
          account from 2002 and had a negative balance in her chargeback              
          recovery account for each month of 2003.  For each month of 2003,           







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007