- 141 - corporations during 1986 through 1991. In support of this contention, petitioners argue that (1) respondent’s determination in the PKV&S notice of deficiency and paragraph 51 of the Stipulation of Facts establish that a portion of the compensation deducted by PKV&S on its consolidated income tax returns for 1992 and 1993 is attributable to deferred compensation that was paid to Rose during those years and (2) Rose was insufficiently compensated for his services to PK Ventures and its subsidiaries during 1986 through 1991. As discussed below, petitioners’ arguments are unpersuasive. Paragraph 51 of the Stipulation of Facts recites the following: 51. As is reflected in the notice of deficiency, the respondent determined that PK Ventures is entitled to a 1992 deduction for compensation for Rose in the amount of $438,055, which consists of $143,317 of then-current compensation and $294,738 of deferred compensation. The notice of deficiency also reflects the determination of the respondent that PK Ventures is entitled to a 1993 deduction for compensation for Rose in the amount of $139,141, all of which is then-current compensation. Paragraph 51 of the Stipulation of Facts does not add anything to respondent’s determination, and it does not establish that respondent’s determination is correct. Because our conclusions as to deductible amounts are based on the evidence and not on any alleged concession as to deferred compensation, petitioners’ argument as to the effect of this stipulation and of respondent’s determination in the PKV&S notice of deficiency is unpersuasive.Page: Previous 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011