Damron Auto Parts, Inc. - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          investor would have been quite satisfied with petitioner’s                  
          consistent growth, solid management, and other indications that             
          gains would continue.                                                       
               Respondent contends that petitioner’s accountant performed             
          yearend planning “to severely limit petitioner’s taxable income”.           
          The bonus calculations were performed at yearend because it was             
          then that petitioner’s accountant had all the information                   
          required to determine the appropriate amount of the payments.               
          Our focus is on the reasonableness of the amounts, not the                  
          payment dates, of the compensation.  The timing of the payments             
          does not lead us to conclude that Mr. Damron’s compensation was             
          unreasonably high.  See Owensby & Kritikos, Inc. v. Commissioner,           
          819 F.2d 1315, 1323, 1329 (5th Cir. 1987) (stating that “No                 
          single factor is decisive of the question * * * [although] such             
          substantial bonuses declared at year-end when the earnings of a             
          business are known usually indicate the existence of disguised              
          dividends”), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-267.                                     
               Respondent also contends that the amounts he allowed are “in           
          line with” Mr. Damron’s compensation as an LKQ employee.  All the           
          evidence presented at trial, however, established that Mr.                  
          Damron’s responsibilities to LKQ were fewer, less stressful, and            
          less time-consuming than his previous work for petitioner.  In              
          short, LKQ paid Mr. Damron less than petitioner paid because at             
          LKQ he delegated more of his responsibilities.                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011