- 21 -
677. Respondent argues that several characteristics of Exacto
support the conclusion that the level of compensation paid to Mr.
Heitz was unreasonable. First, respondent argues that Exacto's
low level of dividends is an indication that part of Mr. Heitz’
compensation was really disguised dividends. Exacto did not pay
dividends from FY 1989 through FY 1994.
A corporation's failure to pay dividends may be a factor in
determining the reasonableness of officer compensation. Owensby
& Kritikos, Inc. v. Commissioner, 819 F.2d at 1324.
Corporations, however, are not required to pay dividends.
Indeed, shareholders may be equally content with the appreciation
of their stock caused, for example, by the retention of earnings.
Id. at 1323-1324; Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Commissioner,
73 T.C. at 1162. Shareholder equity increased from $9,000 (Mr.
Heitz’, Mr. Greene's, and Mr. Quillen's initial capital
investment in 1960) to $7,550,000 in 1989. The appreciation in
the value of Exacto's stock weakens respondent's argument that
the earnings of Exacto were being siphoned out in the form of
disguised dividends.
Second, respondent correctly contends that Mr. Heitz was
able to influence the amount of his own compensation as he was
the majority shareholder and president of Exacto. In such a
situation, we must carefully scrutinize the reasonableness of the
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011