- 15 - Table 4 1995 1996 Petitioner: Paid, deducted, and $762,186 $863,559 stands by tax returns Respondent Allows: Notice of deficiency 1 423,245 2465,800 After concessions 3 604,117 485,966 Court Finds: 610,000 630,000 1 In the notice of deficiency, respondent allowed a deduction of $444,989 of the amount petitioner paid to both Jack and Mary. Because respondent concedes that the entire $21,744 paid to Mary is deductible, this leaves $423,245 as the amount petitioner paid to Jack that respondent determined to be deductible. 2 In the notice of deficiency, respondent allowed a deduction of $483,800 of the amount petitioner paid to both Jack and Mary. Because respondent concedes that the entire $18,000 paid to Mary is deductible, this leaves $465,800 as the amount petitioner paid to Jack that respondent determined to be deductible. 3 This is the sum of $599,117, derived by Hakala’s formulaic approach, plus “additional compensation of $5,000.00 to Mr. Brewer for providing his personal guarantee to secure a short-term working capital line of credit in 1995.” Infra OPINION, C. Analysis, 1. Reasonableness, (d) Amount of Reasonable Compensation, (2) Loan Guarantee. Petitioner did not intend in 1995 and did not intend in 1996 to compensate Jack for his earlier services to petitioner. OPINION A. Parties’ Positions Petitioner maintains that the amounts it paid to Jack as compensation were reasonable in amount, within the meaning of section 162(a)(1), and so these amounts are fully deductible.Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011