- 16 - general problem [in] * * * distinguishing between dividends and compensation for services received by a shareholder-employee of a closely held corporation. What makes this situation troublesome is that the shareholder-employee and the corporation are not dealing with each other at arm’s length. It is likely to be in the interests of both the corporation and the shareholder-employee to characterize any payments to the shareholder-employee as compensation rather than dividends. For this reason, a taxpayer’s characterization of such payments may warrant close scrutiny to ensure that a portion of the purported compensation payments is not a disguised dividend. See Nor-Cal Adjusters v. Commissioner, 503 F.2d 359, 361 (9th Cir. 1974). In that regard, respondent points out that petitioner paid out 26.7 percent and 57.1 percent of its gross income as compensation for 1995 and 1996, respectively. In addition, petitioner paid out in compensation to the Valentes’ 81.6 percent and 88.7 percent of its taxable income before considering the compensation deduction for 1995 and 1996, respectively. E. The Internal Consistency in the Company’s Treatment of Payments to Employees Under this test, a company’s formal compensation program is considered, and a comparative analysis is made of compensation to shareholder/employees in relation to compensation of nonshareholder employees. Petitioner had no such formal program; instead, Mr. Valente would decide the amount of compensation on a year-by-year basis. Moreover, the only other employee of petitioner was a bookkeeper who did not have comparable qualifications, responsibilities, etc.Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011