- -26
to the business, and that they did not need an incentive plan to
perform well.
Mr. Penalba testified that he assisted in development of the
plan and thought that it was adequate to maintain the performance
of the company. Mr. Penalba did not know how it was calculated,
nor did he know the specifics of the plan. Based on the record
in this case, it is clear that the plan was not the major
incentive for the work output of either Mr. or Mrs. Penalba
during the year at issue.
It is also clear from the record that petitioner paid its
other employees at least on par with, if not slightly better
than, other companies in the industry. Mr. Rubino, the
production manager for petitioner during the year at issue, and a
salesman for petitioner at the time of trial, and the only
employee of petitioner other than the Penalbas to testify in this
case, received a salary of $58,175, along with a company car,
certain other bonuses, and health care for his family. Mr.
Rubino testified that he was better paid than others at the same
level in the industry. The record also indicates that petitioner
paid its salesmen, who served as either independent contractors
or employees, well, during the year at issue. The only evidence
as to the compensation of the other employees of petitioner is
their respective salaries. Petitioner did not provide a pension
plan for its employees during the year at issue, but the evidence
indicates that it was other employees of petitioner and not the
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011