196 F.3d 833, 1999 U.S. App. 99-2 U.S.
Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,964; 84 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6977
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner corporation
appealed from the United States Tax Court decision holding that the
chief executive officer's salary was unreasonably high and assessing
a deficiency accordingly.
FACTS: In 1993 and 1994, petitioner, a closely held corporation, paid its cofounder, chief executive, and principal owner $ 1.3 million and $ 1.0 million, respectively, in salary. The Internal Revenue Service thought this excessive, reduced it by more than half, adding the difference to the corporation's income, and assessed a deficiency accordingly. The Tax Court found the maximum reasonable compensation roughly midway between his actual compensation and the IRS's determination, applying seven factors, all of which either favored the taxpayer or were neutral.
FACTS: In 1993 and 1994, petitioner, a closely held corporation, paid its cofounder, chief executive, and principal owner $ 1.3 million and $ 1.0 million, respectively, in salary. The Internal Revenue Service thought this excessive, reduced it by more than half, adding the difference to the corporation's income, and assessed a deficiency accordingly. The Tax Court found the maximum reasonable compensation roughly midway between his actual compensation and the IRS's determination, applying seven factors, all of which either favored the taxpayer or were neutral.
ANALYSIS:
The appellate court reversed, calling
the Tax Court conclusion "stunning," holding that remand
was warranted because the Tax Court did not support its result with
reasoning and the seven-factor test did not provide guidance to a
rational decision. The appellate court applied an "independent
investor" test, which petitioner met, resulting in the actual
salary being held presumptively reasonable.
CONCLUSION: Judgment was reversed with directions to enter judgment for taxpayer, because the chief executive officer's salary met the independent investor test and was presumptively reasonable, and the Tax Court's contrary finding was not supported by the evidence.
CONCLUSION: Judgment was reversed with directions to enter judgment for taxpayer, because the chief executive officer's salary met the independent investor test and was presumptively reasonable, and the Tax Court's contrary finding was not supported by the evidence.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment