Butts v. Comr. of IRS

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

Nos. 94-2340, 94-2776.

Dan P. BUTTS and Cynthia D. Butts, Petitioners-Appellees,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellant.

A. Wayne SMITHWICK and Roseanne M. Smithwick, Petitioners-
Appellees,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellant.

April 10, 1995.

Appeals from the Decision of the United States Tax Court. (Nos.
18289-92, 1458-92).

Before DUBINA, Circuit Judge, RONEY and ESCHBACH*, Senior Circuit
Judges.

PER CURIAM:

These two appeals by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue,

consolidated for oral argument, involve the appropriate tax

treatment to be given to the arrangement of the taxpayers as agents

selling life, automobile, fire, and other types of insurance for

Allstate Insurance Company. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue

contends they should be treated as employees. The taxpayers

successfully contended in the United States Tax Court that they are

independent contractors. We affirm.

These cases were heard and appealed separately from the

decisions of different Tax Court judges, but the controlling facts

are the same. When taxpayers first started selling Allstate

*
Honorable Jesse E. Eschbach, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge of
the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
insurance, they were concededly employees working under an Allstate

Agent Compensation Agreement. Subsequently, they entered into a

"Neighborhood Office Agent Amendment to Allstate Compensation

Agreement."

The case of Dan P. and Cynthia Butts was first decided by Tax

Court Judge Marvin P. Peterson on October 21, 1993. The sole issue

presented was whether petitioner Dan P. Butts performed services

for Allstate as an employee or as an independent contractor. Based

upon a hearing and some stipulated facts in a thoroughly reasoned

opinion, Judge Peterson held that petitioners had met their burden

of proving that Mr. Butts' professional relationship with Allstate

was not as an employee, rather that he was associated with Allstate

as an independent contractor. Thus, the taxpayers' business

deductions were to be reported under Schedule C of the tax return

and not as Schedule A unreimbursed employee business expenses.

Butts v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C.Memo 1993-478, 66

T.C.M. (CCH) 1041, 1993 WL 410704 (U.S.Tax Ct.1993).

Subsequently, on December 9, 1993, Tax Court Judge Charles E.

Clapp, II, decided that the A. Wayne and Roseanne M. Smithwick

case, involving the identical Allstate agreements involved in the

Butts case, had no relevant facts that are distinguishable from the

Butts case. Accordingly, Judge Clapp decided the case for the

petitioners on the basis of the reasoning in Butts. Smithwick v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C.Memo 1993-582, 66 T.C.M.

(CCH) 1545, 1993 WL 503911 (U.S.Tax Ct.1993).

Prior to oral argument, this Court was advised of yet another

case involving the identical Allstate agreements in which the Tax
Court, relying on the decision in Butts, reached the same

conclusion. Mosteirin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No.

3996-94 (U.S.Tax Ct., Jan. 13, 1995). We were informed at oral

argument that there are currently pending eleven other cases

concerning the same issue.

We affirm based upon the findings and reasoning of the Tax

Court's decision in Butts. Prompt resolution of the issue by this

Court is critical. Since the Tax Court's detailed opinion is

readily available to the tax bench and bar and no additional

arguments were made to this Court that were not properly treated in

Judge Peterson's opinion, there is no need to prepare a detailed

opinion of this Court nor to attach the Tax Court decision for

reference. This opinion is sufficient to establish the law of this

Circuit for precedential purposes.
AFFIRMED.