- 10 -
advance recovery and chargeback recovery balances, a check was
not issued to the agent.”
Based on the foregoing, and under the relevant tax law, Mrs.
Harper would have had cancellation of indebtedness income at the
time that monthly premiums were reclassified as earned income
and/or any preexisting deficiency in her commission account was
offset. See Diers v. Commissioner, supra; Cox v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1996-241; cf. Warden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-
165. Therefore, the Court holds that petitioners received
commission income in the amount of $1,125.93 in 2003.
Petitioners also contest inclusion of the amounts listed on
the Form 1099 at issue on the grounds that Mrs. Harper had
stopped selling policies for Primerica sometime in the fall of
2002, and, accordingly, she could not have made any sales from
which commissions could be generated in 2003. Petitioners
testified that despite their repeated requests to Primerica
regarding the exact circumstances by which the figures reflected
in the 2003 monthly statements were derived, they had not been
able to ascertain the exact nature of these amounts.
Based on the entire record before us, we are not convinced
either that Mrs. Harper ended her affiliation with Primerica in
November of 2002, or that (assuming that she did not actually
sell any policies in 2003) Primerica did not account for policies
that she sold in 2002 on its 2003 monthly reports. First, Mrs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007