- 10 -
(5th Cir. 1987), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-267; Elliotts, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 716 F.2d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 1983), revg. T.C.
Memo. 1980-282; Charles Schneider & Co. v. Commissioner, 500 F.2d
148, 151 (8th Cir. 1974), affg. T.C. Memo. 1973-130. Situations
indicating that shareholder-employees were not dealing with the
corporation at arm’s length warrant close scrutiny. This ensures
that no part of the purported compensation was a disguised
dividend. Owensby & Kritikos, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra; Heil
Beauty Supplies, Inc. v. Commissioner, 199 F.2d 193, 194 (8th
Cir. 1952), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court dated Dec.
13, 1950. Numerous factors have been used in determining the
reasonableness of compensation, with no single factor being
dispositive. See Rapco, Inc. v. Commissioner, 85 F.3d 950, 954
(2d Cir. 1996) (applying the factor analysis from the perspective
of an independent investor), affg. T.C. Memo. 1995-128; Owensby &
Kritikos, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 1323; Pepsi–Cola
Bottling Co. v. Commissioner, 528 F.2d 176, 178 (10th Cir. 1975),
affg. 61 T.C. 564 (1974); Charles Schneider & Co. v.
Commissioner, supra at 152 (identifying nine factors); RTS Inv.
Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-98 (identifying eight
factors), affd. 877 F.2d 647 (8th Cir. 1989). But cf. Exacto
Spring Corp. v. Commissioner, 196 F.3d 833, 838 (7th Cir. 1999)
(applying the “independent investor test” rather than the
multiple-factor approach used by the majority of circuits), revg.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011