Elliotts, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
716 F.2d 1241 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The reasonableness of compensation paid to a shareholder-employee of a closely held corporation should be evaluated from the perspective of a hypothetical independent investor considering a multi-factor test, and should not be presumed to be a disguised dividend merely because the profitable corporation has not paid dividends.
Facts:
- Edward G. Elliott has been the chief executive officer of Elliotts, Inc. since its incorporation in 1952 and its sole shareholder since 1954.
- Elliott had total managerial responsibility for the business, performing the functions of general manager, sales manager, and credit manager, and worked approximately 80 hours per week.
- Since the company's inception, Elliott's compensation was determined by a longstanding formula consisting of a fixed salary of $2,000 per month plus an annual bonus of 50% of the company's net profits before taxes.
- Under Elliott's leadership, the company's gross annual sales grew from $500,000 to over $5 million.
- For the fiscal years 1975 and 1976, Elliotts, Inc. paid Elliott total compensation of $181,074 and $191,663, respectively, based on this formula.
- Elliotts, Inc. had a policy of not paying dividends and reinvesting its profits back into the business.
- After paying Elliott's compensation for the years in question, the corporation maintained a high rate of return on equity, averaging 20%.
Procedural Posture:
- Elliotts, Inc. filed its corporate tax returns for fiscal years 1975 and 1976, claiming deductions for the full compensation paid to its CEO, Edward Elliott.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue audited the returns and issued a notice of deficiency, disallowing a portion of the compensation deductions and limiting reasonable compensation to $65,000 for each year.
- Elliotts, Inc. petitioned the U.S. Tax Court (a court of first instance) for a redetermination of its tax liability.
- The Tax Court held that a portion of the compensation was a disguised dividend and determined that reasonable compensation was $120,000 for 1975 and $125,000 for 1976.
- Elliotts, Inc. appealed the Tax Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a profitable, closely held corporation's failure to pay dividends automatically render a portion of an otherwise reasonable compensation package paid to its sole shareholder-employee a non-deductible disguised dividend under I.R.C. § 162(a)(1)?
Opinions:
Majority - Hug
No, the failure of a profitable corporation to pay dividends does not, by itself, justify recharacterizing a portion of a shareholder-employee's compensation as a disguised dividend. The court rejects the 'automatic dividend rule' established in McCandless, which presumed a disguised dividend from the mere absence of dividend payments. The court reasoned that no statute requires profitable corporations to pay dividends and that shareholders may prefer the company to reinvest its profits to generate appreciation. The proper analysis under § 162(a)(1) is a multi-factor test to determine if the compensation is reasonable. This inquiry should be conducted from the perspective of a hypothetical independent investor, focusing on whether that investor would be satisfied with the company's return on equity after the compensation is paid. Here, the company's 20% average return on equity would likely satisfy such an investor, indicating that Elliott was not siphoning off profits disguised as salary. The Tax Court erred by overemphasizing the lack of dividends and failing to properly weigh other factors, such as the company's strong performance, Elliott's crucial role, and the consistent, long-standing nature of the compensation formula.
Analysis:
This decision significantly shifts the analysis of reasonable compensation in the Ninth Circuit by explicitly rejecting the 'automatic dividend rule' and establishing the 'hypothetical independent investor test.' This provides greater certainty and flexibility for closely held corporations that choose to reinvest earnings rather than pay dividends. By focusing on the corporation's return on equity as a primary indicator of reasonableness, the court prioritizes corporate performance over the simple form of profit distribution. This precedent makes it more difficult for the IRS to challenge compensation in profitable, non-dividend-paying companies, provided the company can demonstrate that an outside investor would be pleased with their return.
Unlock the full brief for Elliotts, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue