- 19 -
contends that in 1994 and 1995, the petitioner is entitled to
deduct as wages the actual collections of the shareholder-
employees, less their share of the petitioner’s expenses.” In
petitioner’s opening brief, petitioner argues for a “per se”
rule, that the payments to the shareholder surgeons were
reasonable in amount because they did not exceed petitioner’s
profits, calculated by subtracting from petitioner’s gross
receipts (which were exclusively from providing services) all
corporate expenses except officers’ compensation. Petitioner
makes the same argument in different terms in its answering
brief: “Petitioner’s shareholder surgeons were paid compensation
in an amount less than their gross collections, which proves that
they were reasonably compensated.” The disagreement between the
parties is over how much the shareholder surgeons received for
their services, not whether that amount, when finally determined,
is reasonable.
To prevail, petitioner must show that the remaining amounts
were paid to the shareholder surgeons purely for their services.
As a preliminary matter, petitioner’s principal arguments raise
questions of law.
2. Questions of Law
a. Bianchi v. Commissioner
Petitioner argues:
[T]he best evidence of value of services provided in a
professional personal service corporation is the profit
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011