Adrian D. Troutman, Jr. - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          necessary if it is appropriate and helpful for the development of           
          the business.  See Commissioner v. Heininger, 320 U.S. 467, 471             
          (1943).                                                                     
               A taxpayer may deduct payments for compensation if the                 
          amount paid is reasonable and for services actually rendered for            
          the payor in or before the year of payment.  See sec. 162(a)(1);            
          Lucas v. Ox Fibre Brush Co., 281 U.S. 115, 119 (1930).  The                 
          reasonableness of compensation is a question of fact that must be           
          answered by comparing each employee’s compensation with the value           
          of services that he or she performed in return.  See RTS Inv.               
          Corp. v. Commissioner, 877 F.2d 647, 650 (8th Cir. 1989), affg.             
          per curiam T.C. Memo. 1987-98; Charles Schneider & Co. v.                   
          Commissioner, 500 F.2d 148, 151 (8th Cir. 1974), affg. T.C. Memo.           
          1973-130; Estate of Wallace v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 525, 553               
          (1990), affd. 965 F.2d 1038 (11th Cir. 1992).                               
               Generally, payments are deductible if they are made with an            
          intent to compensate. Paula Constr. Co. v. Commissioner, 58 T.C.            
          1055, 1058 (1972), affd. 474 F.2d 1345 (5th Cir. 1973); see also            
          UAL Corp. v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 7, 10 (2001); Elec. & Neon,             
          Inc. v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 1324, 1340 (1971). “Whether such              
          intent has been demonstrated is a factual question to be decided            
          on the basis of the particular facts and circumstances of the               
          case.” Paula Constr. Co. v. Commissioner, supra.                            
               1.   Purchases Made by Ms. Novak-O’Farrell                             
               Petitioner argues that the purchases made by Ms. Novak-                
          O’Farrell were additional compensation to her.  We disagree.                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011