Choate Construction Co. - Page 31

                                                - 31 -                                                   
            risk for petitioner; he simply assumed risk to buy stock for                                 
            himself.                                                                                     
                  This factor favors petitioner.                                                         
                  13. Respondent's Other Contentions                                                     
                  Respondent cites Guy Schoenecker, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C.                           
            Memo. 1995-539.  In that case, we were not convinced that the                                
            taxpayer's CEO was exceptional or irreplaceable because an                                   
            assistant or the CEO's son could do the CEO's job.  The                                      
            taxpayer's growth was similar to that of its competitors.  The                               
            taxpayer had been in business for 10 years before the years in                               
            issue and had not had the rapid growth and success that                                      
            petitioner did.  Choate's performance was exceptional.  There is                             
            no evidence that anyone else could have done what Choate did for                             
            petitioner.                                                                                  
                  In Tricon Metals & Servs., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                            
            1997-360 (decided after the parties filed their briefs in this                               
            case), we found that the compensation paid by the taxpayer                                   
            exceeded a reasonable amount.  However, in Tricon Metals, unlike                             
            this case, the taxpayer did not show that its operations were                                














Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011