B & D Foundations, Inc. - Page 19




                                        - 19 -                                        
          No single factor is dispositive.  Pac. Grains, Inc. v.                      
          Commissioner, 399 F.2d 603, 606 (9th Cir. 1968), affg. T.C. Memo.           
          1967-7; Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Commissioner, 73 T.C.               
          1142, 1156 (1980).                                                          
               In Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Salina, Inc. v. Commissioner,            
          supra at 179, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, to                
          which this case is appealable, listed nine factors to be                    
          considered, with the situation as a whole being considered and no           
          single factor being decisive.  These nine factors are:  (1) The             
          employee’s qualifications; (2) the nature, extent, and scope of             
          the employee’s work; (3) the size and complexities of the                   
          business; (4) a comparison of salaries paid with the gross income           
          and the net income; (5) the prevailing economic conditions; (6) a           
          comparison of salaries with distributions to shareholders; (7)              
          the prevailing rates of compensation for comparable positions in            
          comparable concerns; (8) the salary policy of the taxpayer as to            
          all employees; and (9) in the case of small corporations with a             
          limited number of officers, the amount of compensation paid to              
          the particular employee in previous years.                                  
               Petitioner contends it has established the reasonableness of           
          the compensation it paid to Mr. Myers and Mrs. Myers and deducted           
          for its fiscal year ended July 31, 1996.  Respondent contends to            
          the contrary that petitioner has failed to establish its right to           
          a larger compensation deduction than respondent allowed in the              
          notice of deficiency.                                                       




Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011