- 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 profitPage: 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