William J. and Sandra D. Heitz - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         

          support the level of compensation that was paid to Mr. Heitz and            
          still provide the minimum required return and that reasonable               
          compensation should, at most, be $592,500 and $621,400 for the              
          fiscal years 1993 and 1994, respectively.  Respondent, however,             
          maintains that reasonable compensation does not exceed the                  
          amounts allowed in the notice of deficiency ($380,952 and                   
          $400,000 for the fiscal years 1993 and 1994, respectively).                 
               Although we have approved of the use of an investor return             
          analysis in evaluating the reasonableness of compensation,                  
          Diverse Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-84, the               
          analysis here is flawed.  Exacto's concession of over $1 million            
          in adjustments in each of the tax years was not taken into                  
          account by respondent's expert in determining Exacto's after-tax            
          profit for purposes of the investor return analysis.  In                    
          calculating an investor's return, a company's actual performance,           
          not necessarily its reported underperformance, should be                    
          considered.  If Exacto's concessions are taken into account,                
          Exacto's after-tax return on equity would have been over 20                 
          percent for each of the years at issue.                                     
               G.  Characteristics of the Employer's Business                         
               The final category identified by the Court of Appeals for              
          the Seventh Circuit concerns the peculiar characteristics of the            
          employer's business.  Edwin’s, Inc. v. United States, 501 F.2d at           







Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011