Square D Company and Subsidiaries - Page 94

                                       - 73 -                                         
          Taxation, General Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the              
          Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, at 204 (J. Comm. Print 1984).  The           
          independent investor test takes no account of the existence or              
          absence of an acquisition context.  The conventional multifactor            
          test, which considers, inter alia, historical (preacquisition)              
          compensation as well as compensation paid by comparable companies           
          that have not been recently acquired, is better designed to                 
          identify the amount of compensation that would have been paid               
          outside an acquisition context, and it is this amount that we               
          conclude Congress intended to treat as reasonable compensation              
          for purposes of section 280G(b)(4).38                                       






               38 Even if the independent investor test were applied in               
          this case, petitioner has failed to demonstrate by clear and                
          convincing evidence that its after-tax return on equity in 1992             
          would have been satisfactory to a hypothetical independent                  
          investor.                                                                   
               Based on its audited financial statements, petitioner’s                
          after-tax return on equity for 1992 was negative.  After making a           
          series of adjustments that purportedly eliminate the effects of             
          its acquisition and associated indebtedness, petitioner contends            
          that its return on equity was more than 20 percent in 1992.  We             
          need not decide whether petitioner has demonstrated clearly and             
          convincingly that these adjustments are appropriate because, in             
          any event, petitioner has failed to demonstrate what the rates of           
          return for comparable companies would be if similar adjustments             
          were made to their earnings and stockholders’ equity.                       
          Accordingly, even if an independent investor test were                      
          applicable, petitioner has not shown that the compensation paid             
          to the Retained Executives was reasonable thereunder.                       





Page:  Previous  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011