- 22 -
particular employee in previous years; and (j) whether the
employer offers a pension plan or profit-sharing plan to its
employees. See Mad Auto Wrecking, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra
(and the cases cited therein). Recently, the Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit has expressed its disagreement with a
multifactor test, opting instead to rest its analysis of the
reasonableness of compensation primarily on whether an
independent investor would have approved of the amount of
compensation paid to the employee. Exacto Spring Corp. v.
Commissioner, 196 F.3d at 838-839. The court observed that the
Courts of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits have
concluded somewhat differently by requiring that the various
factors of the traditional test be analyzed from the perspective
of an independent investor. Id. at 838; accord Eberl’s Claim
Serv., Inc. v. Commissioner, 249 F.3d 994, 1003-1004 (10th Cir.
2001) (court rejected independent investor test in lieu of a
multifactor approach), affg. T.C. Memo. 1999-211. Our
jurisprudence has also applied a multifactor test through the
lens of an independent investor, in the setting of a case that
was not appealable to a circuit that had already recognized such
an application. Wagner Constr., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2001-160 (venue was the Eighth Circuit); see also Tricon Metals &
Servs., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-360. We follow
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011