PMT, INC. - Page 27

                                        -  -27                                           
          Penalbas who requested that the pension plan be terminated,                 
          because the employees desired control over how to invest the                
          proceeds.  Although petitioner paid its employees other than the            
          Penalbas well, the divergence in their pay and the pay of the               
          Penalbas is striking.  Petitioner's highest paid salesman earned            
          $337,182.59 in petitioner's fiscal year 1990, as compared to                
          $1,342,400 paid to Mr. Penalba.  It should also be noted that               
          each of the Penalbas devoted some time to another corporation in            
          which they were stockholders and were compensated for that work             
          as employees.                                                               
               Based on all of these factors, we conclude that, although              
          there has been no showing that the compensation allowed by                  
          respondent for Mr. Penalba is not reasonable for Mr. Penalba's              
          normal duties as petitioner's CEO, Mr. Penalba, in addition, is             
          entitled to substantial compensation during the year at issue for           
          his development of the cotton/Lycra fabric that was largely                 
          responsible for petitioner's increased sales in that year.                  
               Respondent argues on brief that it is not appropriate to               
          determine a reasonable salary for Mr. Penalba's services to                 
          petitioner by separately considering all the various "jobs" he              
          did and determining a reasonable amount for each.  However, this            
          Court and other courts have in numerous cases considered the                
          reasonableness of compensation based on the fact that the                   
          recipient performed more than one function for his employer, even           
          though it may not be the sum of the amounts which would be paid             




Page:  Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011