The company cannot deduct a dividend paid
to a shareholder and the shareholder is forced to pay income taxes on the dividend even
though the income has already been taxed at the corporate level.
It appears that this particular company will win its case in this instance. An appeals court
supported the company's position and remanded the case to the trial court.
The company claimed
that the CEO's salary was tied to a formula which had been in place since the company's
inception and his earnings were extremely low in the early years. The company also made
the arguments that its outside investors were pleased with the company's performance and
that the CEO also served as COO and worked long hours.
All of these are valid arguments when looking at executive
compensation as the appeals court pointed out. Perhaps the company's strongest argument
was that the compensation formula had been in place for years. If the executive has an
economic risk (i.e. his earnings fall with profits), which was certainly the case here,
the company's arguments are strengthened considerably.
One of the primary challenges the IRS makes in regard to executive
compensation is the independent investor test. Quite simply, the IRS looks at a given
situation and asks if an independent investor would pay the executive an amount equal to
what he is currently earning. As we all know, in the case of many closely-held companies,
that would not be the case.
Does that mean the compensation is automatically considered
excessive? Not necessarily. The rules do allow considerable leeway in establishing
salaries, but you must be careful and document your decisions well. If you feel that your
company is at risk in this area, we can work with you to examine the options and develop a
compensation plan that is consistent and in compliance with established rules.