Square D Company and Subsidiaries - Page 88

                                       - 67 -                                         
          investor” test must instead be used.34  Exacto Spring Corp. v.              
          Commissioner, 196 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 1999), revg. Heitz v.                  
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-220.  As Exacto Spring Corp.                  
          concerned reasonable compensation for purposes of section 162(a),           
          it is distinguishable from the instant case, and therefore we are           
          not bound by Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970), affd.              
          445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971), to follow it here.                           
               Nonetheless, the disfavor with which the Court of Appeals              
          views the traditional multifactor test for reasonable                       
          compensation prompts us to consider carefully whether it is                 
          appropriate to extend the independent investor test of Exacto               


               34 In Exacto Spring Corp. v. Commissioner, 196 F.3d 833 (7th           
          Cir. 1999), revg. Heitz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-220, the           
          Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected a multifactor             
          test for reasonable compensation in a sec. 162(a)(1) context                
          (which examined such factors as the employee’s skills and duties,           
          prior earning capacity, the prevailing compensation paid to                 
          employees with comparable jobs, etc.) because, inter alia, the              
          factors conventionally used in a multifactor test “do not bear a            
          clear relation * * * to the primary purpose of section 162(a)(1),           
          which is to prevent dividends (or in some cases gifts), which are           
          not deductible from corporate income, from being disguised as               
          salary, which is.”  Id. at 835.  The Court of Appeals held                  
          instead that the independent investor test, which “dissolves the            
          old [multifactor test] and returns the inquiry to basics”, id. at           
          838, must be used.  The independent investor test as fashioned by           
          the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit looks solely at the            
          rate of return that has been generated for the corporation’s                
          owners by its “managers” (i.e., its high-level employees whose              
          compensation is at issue).  If the rate of return (after                    
          compensating the managers) is one that would, according to expert           
          opinion, be acceptable to an independent investor, considering              
          the risks of the investment, then the managers’ compensation is             
          presumptively reasonable.  Id. at 838-839.                                  





Page:  Previous  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011