- 18 - Respondent, on the other hand, contends that only $245,600 is reasonable. Respondent argues that there was no compensatory purpose for the remaining balance, and that Mr. Martin arranged this large disguised dividend in preparation for selling petitioner to his son Mike. Accordingly, we shall analyze and apply the factors enunciated by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Elliotts, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, in order to determine reasonable compensation for Mr. Martin. Petitioner and respondent offered the testimony of three expert witnesses. Petitioner's two experts, John Culbertson (Culbertson) and Pamela Jones (Jones), each own management consulting firms and have advised their respective corporate clients on executive compensation. Respondent's expert, Paul T. Clausen (Clausen), owns his own business valuation company and has testified as an expert witness on the valuation of business assets, business interests, and reasonable executive compensation in numerous court cases. As trier of fact, we are not bound by the opinion of any expert witness and will accept or reject expert testimony, in whole or in part, in the exercise of sound judgment. Helvering v. National Grocery Co., 304 U.S. 282, 295 (1938); Silverman v. Commissioner, 538 F.2d 927, 933 (2d Cir. 1976), and cases thereat, affg. T.C. Memo. 1974-285.Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011