Elliotts, Inc. v. C.I.R.

• Decision Date: 26 September 1983
• Docket Number: No. 81-7173,81-7173
• Citation: 716 F.2d 1241
• Parties: 83-2 USTC P 9610 ELLIOTTS, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 1241

716 F.2d 1241

83-2 USTC P 9610

ELLIOTTS, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 81-7173.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 8, 1982.

Decided Sept. 26, 1983.

William H. Adams, Salt Lake City, Utah, for petitioner-appellant.

David Pincus, Jonathan S. Cohen, Richard M. Wilson, Jr., Washington, D.C., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court.

Before HUG, SKOPIL, and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

HUG, Circuit Judge:

Elliotts, Inc. ("Taxpayer"), challenges the Tax Court's determination of deficiencies in its 1975 and 1976 tax returns. It argues that the Tax Court erred in finding that part of the compensation paid Taxpayer's chief executive and sole shareholder during those years constituted a dividend distribution and thus was not deductible under section 162(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. We reverse.

I BACKGROUND

Taxpayer is an Idaho corporation that sells equipment manufactured by John Deere Co. and services equipment made by Deere and several other manufacturers. Its principal place of business is Burley, Idaho. During the period relevant here, Taxpayer had business locations in both Burley and Idaho Falls, Idaho. ¹ The Idaho Falls location dealt only in industrial equipment; the Burley office sold and serviced a wide range of agricultural and industrial equipment. Out of approximately 168 John Deere agricultural dealers in the zone comprising seven western states, Taxpayer remained, at the time of trial, one of only three dealers handling both agricultural and industrial equipment.

Taxpayer was incorporated in 1952. During its first year, it grossed $500,000 in agricultural equipment sales in the Burley area. It employed about eight people at that time. By 1975, Taxpayer was employing 40 people, selling both agricultural and industrial equipment throughout southeast Idaho, and achieving gross annual sales in excess of $5 million.

Edward G. Elliott has been Taxpayer's chief executive officer since its incorporation and he has also been its sole shareholder since 1954. He has always had total managerial responsibility for Taxpayer's business. In addition to being Taxpayer's ultimate decision and policy maker, he has performed the functions usually delegated to sales and credit managers. It is undisputed that he works about 80 hours each week.

For several years, Taxpayer has paid Elliott a fixed salary of $2000 per month plus a bonus at year's end. Since Taxpayer's incorporation, Elliott's bonus has been fixed at 50% of net profits (before subtraction of taxes and management bonuses).

On its return for the fiscal year ending February 28, 1975, Taxpayer claimed a $181,074 deduction for total compensation paid Elliott. It claimed a similar $191,663 deduction on its return for the fiscal year ending February 28, 1976. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("Commissioner") found these deductions to be in excess of the amounts Taxpayer properly could deduct as reasonable salary under section 162(a)(1). On June 16, 1978, the Commissioner issued Taxpayer a notice of deficiency which limited deductions for Elliott's salary to $65,000 for each fiscal year.

Taxpayer petitioned the Tax Court for a redetermination of liability. The court, after reviewing the testimony and statistical evidence, concluded that the payments to Elliott, in addition to providing compensation for personal services, were intended in part to distribute profits. Although the Tax Court acknowledged that it could not determine what amounts paid Elliott actually were dividends, it found that the total amounts paid him were in excess of reasonable compensation. It determined that $120,000 was reasonable compensation for the year 1975 and that $125,000 was reasonable for 1976. The deficiencies assessed to Taxpayer by the Commissioner were reduced accordingly. Taxpayer appeals the Tax Court's determination of reasonable compensation.

II THE SHAREHOLDER-EMPLOYEE PROBLEM

The issue presented by this case concerns the deductibility by a corporation of payments ostensibly made as compensation for services to an employee who is also a shareholder. If the payments are reasonable compensation for services rendered, the corporation may deduct them. 26 U.S.C. Sec. 162(a)(1). If, however, they are actually dividends, they are not deductible. Thus, it will normally be in a corporation's interest to characterize such payments as compensation rather than dividends. ²

The general problem is that of distinguishing between dividends and compensation for services received by a shareholder-employee of a closely held corporation. What makes this situation troublesome is that the shareholder-employee and the corporation are not dealing with each other at arm's length. It is likely to be in the interests of both the corporation and the shareholder-employee to characterize any payments to the shareholder-employee as compensation rather than dividends. For this reason, a taxpayer's characterization of such payments may warrant close scrutiny to ensure that a portion of the purported compensation payments is not a disguised dividend. See Nor-Cal Adjusters v. Commissioner, 503 F.2d 359, 361 (9th Cir.1974).

The problem of determining whether compensation payments contain an element of disguised dividend is exacerbated in a case such as this one where the shareholder-employee is the corporation's sole shareholder. Not only is a sole shareholder likely to have complete control over the corporation's operations, he will also be the only recipient of its dividends. If a corporation has multiple shareholders, the existence of a plan which compensates shareholder-employees in proportion to their ownership interests may be evidence that compensation payments contain disguised dividends. In the case of a sole shareholder, such evidence is meaningless.

Section 162(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code permits a corporation to deduct "a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered." There is a two-prong test for deductibility under section 162(a)(1): (1) the amount of the compensation must be reasonable and (2) the payments must in fact be purely for services. Treas.Reg. Sec. 1.162-7(a) (1960); Nor-Cal, 503 F.2d at 362.

Proof of the second prong, which requires a "compensatory purpose," can be difficult to establish because of its subjective nature. See Note, Reasonable Compensation and the Close Corporation: McCandless, the Automatic Dividend Rule, and the Dual Level Test, 26 Stan.L.Rev. 441, 447 (1974) (hereafter "Note, Reasonable Compensation "). The existence of a compensatory purpose can often be inferred if the amount of the compensation is determined to be reasonable under the first prong. For these reasons, courts generally concentrate on the first prong--whether the amount of the purported compensation is reasonable. See, e.g., Pacific Grains, Inc. v. Commissioner, 399 F.2d 603 (9th Cir.1968); Note, Reasonable Compensation, 26 Stan.L.Rev. at 447; Coggin, The Status of the McCandless Doctrine, 55 Taxes 720, 720 (Nov. 1977) (hereafter "Coggin"). Courts have generally not delved into whether a compensatory purpose exists under the second prong except in those rare cases where the Commissioner has come forward with evidence that purported compensation payments, although reasonable in amount, were in fact disguised dividends. See, e.g., Klamath Medical Serv. Bureau v. Commissioner, 29 T.C. One court has departed from this practice of restricting the inquiry in most cases to the reasonableness of the payments. In Charles McCandless Tile Serv. v. United States, 422 F.2d 1336, 191 Ct.Cl. 108 (1970), the Court of Claims held that ostensible compensation payments paid to two shareholder-employees, even though reasonable in amount, "necessarily" contained disguised dividends because the closely held corporation had been profitable and had not paid out any dividends since its formation. Id. at 1339-40. ³ This has become known as the "automatic dividend rule," and has been subjected to much criticism. E.g., Coggin, 55 Taxes 720; Walthall, McCandless--Implications for Compensation Planning and Dividend Policy, 6 Cum.L.Rev. 1 (1975) (hereafter "Walthall"); Note, Reasonable Compensation, 26 Stan.L.Rev. 441.

339, 348-49 (1957), aff'd, 261 F.2d 842 (9th Cir.1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 966, 79 S.Ct. 877, 3 L.Ed.2d 834 (1959). See generally Note, Reasonable Compensation, 26 Stan.L.Rev. at 447 & n. 35. By and large, the inquiry under section 162(a)(1) has turned on whether the amounts of the purported compensation payments were reasonable.

We reject the automatic dividend rule of McCandless for several reasons. First, there is no statute requiring profitable corporations to pay dividends. Congress has chosen to handle abuses in this area through the accumulated earnings tax. 26 U.S.C. Secs. 531-537; see Walthall, 6 Cum.L.Rev. at 16-19; Note, Reasonable Compensation, 26 Stan.L.Rev. at 449-50. Beyond the penalties contained in the accumulated earnings tax, Congress has not indicated that it wants the Commissioner or the courts to require the payment of dividends as a matter of federal tax policy. See Casey v. Commissioner, 267 F.2d 26, 30 (2d Cir.1959); Laure v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 1087, 1098 (1978).

Second, the automatic dividend rule is based on the faulty premise that shareholders of a profitable corporation will demand dividends. See McCandless, 422 F.2d at 1339-40. Shareholders are generally concerned with the return on their investment. While some shareholders may prefer to see their return in the form of dividends, others will prefer to have the corporation reinvest its profits so that their return will be in the form of appreciation and the potential of greater future return. See, Note, Reasonable Compensation, 26 Stan.L.Rev. at 450-53. If the shareholders prefer to have their return in the form of...