- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011