Erickson v. Commissioner ( 1993 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion









    August 2, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]




    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    ____________________

    No. 92-2392

    NORMAN D. ERICKSON and MARILYN J. ERICKSON,

    Petitioners, Appellants,

    v.

    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

    Respondent, Appellee.

    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT

    [Hon. Francis J. Cantrel, Judge]
    _____

    ____________________

    Before

    Selya, Circuit Judge,
    _____________

    Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
    ____________________

    and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
    _____________

    ____________________

    Charles J. Reilly with whom Reilly Law Associates was on brief
    __________________ ______________________
    for petitioners.
    Alice L. Ronk, Appellate Section, Tax Division, Department of
    ______________
    Justice, with whom James A. Bruton, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
    _______________
    Gary R. Allen, Chief, Appellate Section, Tax Division, Department of
    _____________
    Justice, and Bruce R. Ellisen, Appellate Section, Tax Division,
    __________________
    Department of Justice, were on brief for respondent.


    ____________________


    ____________________

















    CAMPBELL, Per Curiam. The Internal Revenue Service
    __________

    determined a deficiency in the 1986 income tax of appellants

    Norman and Marilyn Erickson. The issue on appeal is whether

    $50,796 received by appellants under an agreement between

    Norman Erickson and the insurance company for which he had

    served as an insurance agent is self-employment income

    subject to the self-employment tax. See 26 U.S.C. 1401,
    ___

    1402. The United States Tax Court found that it is and

    upheld the deficiency determination against appellants, who

    now appeal.1

    We briefly summarize the relevant facts and

    applicable law, which are described in detail in the

    published opinion of the Tax Court, Erickson v. Commissioner,
    ________ ____________

    64 T.C.M. (CCH) 963 (1992). Norman Erickson worked for

    twenty years as a general insurance agent of the Union Mutual

    Life Insurance Company and related companies. He sold

    insurance as an independent contractor, earning commissions

    on the policies written by him and "renewal commissions" on

    those of his policies that were renewed. Appellants concede

    that Mr. Erickson's commission income when he was an agent

    constituted self-employment income subject to the self-

    employment tax.




    ____________________

    1. The Commissioner does not appeal from the portion of the
    Tax Court's memorandum holding that appellants were not
    negligent within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. 6653(a)(1).

    -2-















    In November 1983 Union Mutual terminated its

    relationship with Erickson and all its other agents.

    Erickson and Union Mutual entered into the General Agent

    Floored Commission Leveling Agreement II in December 1983,

    providing for the payment to Erickson, over a period of

    fifteen years or more, renewal commissions that he otherwise

    would have received if he had continued to be an agent of

    Union Mutual. A number of legal disputes arose in 1984 and

    1985 between Union Mutual and other agents, not including

    Erickson, apparently concerning the computation of their

    renewal commission payments under various leveling

    agreements. Union Mutual settled the disputes by entering

    into a Settlement Agreement and General Release with all its

    former agents, including Erickson. The $50,796 in dispute in

    this case was paid to Erickson in 1986 by Union Mutual

    pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

    Section 1401 of the Code imposes a tax on the

    "self-employment income" of every individual. Self-

    employment income consists of the "net earnings from self-

    employment derived by an individual . . . during any taxable

    year." 26 U.S.C. 1402(b). "Net earnings from self-

    employment" is defined as "gross income derived by an

    individual from any trade or business carried on by such

    individual, less the deductions allowed by this subtitle

    which are attributable to such trade or business." Id. at
    ___



    -3-















    1402(a). The Commissioner determined that the Settlement

    Agreement payments represented Mr. Erickson's renewal

    commissions. Appellants argued before the Tax Court that the

    Settlement Agreement was a contract of sale for Mr.

    Erickson's insurance business. The parties agree on the law:

    if the Settlement Agreement payments represented renewal

    commissions, then they are taxable as self-employment income

    under 26 U.S.C. 1401. See Simpson v. Commissioner, 64 T.C.
    ___ _______ ____________

    974 (1975); Becker v. Tomlinson, 62-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH)
    ______ _________

    9446, at 84,298, 9 A.F.T.R.2d (P-H) 1408 (S.D. Fla. 1962).

    If, as appellants contend, the payments were for the sale of

    business assets, they do not constitute self-employment

    income. See Erickson, 64 T.C.M. at 967.
    ___ ________

    The only issue for this court, then, is whether the

    Tax Court erred in finding, id. at 967-68, that payments
    ___

    under the Settlement Agreement were made in lieu of renewal

    commissions and were not payments for the sale of Mr.

    Erickson's insurance business to Union Mutual. Tax Court

    findings as to the purpose of a particular transaction and

    the intent of the parties involved are findings of fact that

    will be reversed only if clearly erroneous. Crowley v.
    _______

    Commissioner, 962 F.2d 1077, 1080 (1st Cir. 1992). Ample
    ____________

    evidence in the record supports the Tax Court's present

    findings. The Settlement Agreement makes absolutely no

    reference to a sale of a business or business assets. On its



    -4-















    face, the agreement simply terminates and replaces the

    Leveling Agreement II, which appellants concede was not a

    sale but an agreement for the uniform payment of renewal

    commissions that otherwise would have been received by Mr.

    Erickson. The stated purpose of the parties in entering the

    Settlement Agreement was to "establish fully, finally and

    with certainty all of their outstanding obligations arising
    ___

    out of the general agent contractual relationship between the

    parties." Moreover, Mr. Erickson admitted in his testimony

    before the Tax Court that he owned very few of the supplies

    and pieces of equipment retained by Union Mutual. "His"

    staff at the insurance office, which he claims was part of

    the sale transaction, actually was on the Union Mutual

    payroll before the alleged sale. No documentary evidence

    supports his vague testimony that he "negotiated" the terms

    of the Settlement Agreement with Union Mutual over a long

    period of time. On this record, it was entirely reasonable

    for the Tax Court to reject Mr. Erickson's characterization

    of the transaction.

    Because the Tax Court's determination that the

    $50,796 received by appellants represented renewal

    commissions was not clearly erroneous, and appellants do not

    challenge the taxability of renewal commissions as self-

    employment income, we affirm.





    -5-















    Affirmed.
    _________



















































    -6-







Document Info

Docket Number: 92-2392

Filed Date: 8/3/1993

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015