E.J. Harrison and Sons, Inc. - Page 45

                                       - 45 -                                         
                  e.  Internal Inconsistency                                          
               Evidence of an internal inconsistency in the determination             
          of employee compensation may indicate the presence of                       
          unreasonable compensation to employee-shareholders.  Elliotts,              
          Inc. v. Commissioner, 716 F.2d at 1247.  Such evidence may also             
          be “probative of a presence or absence of compensatory intent.”             
          Id. at n.7.  In addition, “salaries paid to controlling                     
          shareholders are open to question if, when compared to salaries             
          paid nonowner management, they indicate that the level of                   
          compensation is a function of ownership, not corporate management           


               6(...continued)                                                        
          attached to the copy of the return in evidence.                             
               Moreover, because petitioner’s equity remained essentially             
          constant while its sales and assets increased, ROE does not                 
          appear to be an appropriate measure of shareholder return in this           
          case.  For example, comparing 1988-90 with the audit years (1995-           
          97), average yearend equity increased only 4 percent whereas                
          average sales increased 129 percent and average yearend assets              
          increased 215 percent.  Under such circumstances, it would appear           
          that either ROA or ROS would be superior to ROE as a measure of             
          performance.  For the audit years, both ROA and ROS were quite              
          low (average ROA was .9 percent and average ROS was .27 percent).           
               Alternatively, ROE might be an appropriate measure of                  
          performance if petitioner’s fair market value were substituted              
          for “book” equity.  In that connection, we note that book equity            
          has not always been used in computing return on equity.  See                
          Lumber City Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-171 (holding             
          that the amount paid by the employee-shareholder for a stock                
          interest in his employer, rather than book shareholder equity,              
          was appropriate for use in determining whether return on                    
          investment was sufficient to satisfy an independent investor).              
          That alternative approach is not available in this case because,            
          aside from Mr. Carey’s admitted speculation that petitioner was             
          worth between $12 million and $20 million, there is no evidence             
          as to petitioner’s fair market value during the audit years.                




Page:  Previous  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011