Tax Court denies reasonable compensation deduction


The U.S. Tax Court recently ruled in Clary Hood, Inc. v. Commissioner (No. 3362-19), that a portion of the compensation paid by a C corporation to its CEO and sole shareholder was unreasonable compensation under Section 162(a)(1).

The Tax Court determined that in the Fourth Circuit—the circuit under which an appeal of Clary Hood would lie—eight main factors must be considered when determining reasonable compensation:

  • The employee’s qualifications
  • The nature, extent, and scope of the employee’s work
  • The size and complexities of the business
  • A comparison of salaries paid with gross income and net income
  • The prevailing general economic conditions
  • A comparison of salaries with distributions to stockholders
  • The prevailing rates of compensation for comparable positions in comparable concerns
  • The salary policy of the corporation as to all employees

The court also considered two additional factors that other circuits have considered in the context of small corporations with a limited number of officers (like Clary Hood, in this case):

  • Compensation paid in prior years
  • Personal guaranties of debts or other obligations of the corporation

The Tax Court noted that while certain factors favored the corporation, not all factors are afforded equal weight. The court found the following points to be the most relevant and persuasive in concluding that a portion of the compensation paid to the officer/shareholder was not reasonable:

  • Comparable pay by comparable concerns
  • The corporation’s shareholder distribution history (no distributions were ever made)
  • The setting of the officer/shareholder’s compensation (no agreement in place regarding the officer/shareholder’s compensation)
  • The officer/shareholder’s involvement in the business

The court also found the testimony of the IRS’s compensation expert witness to be helpful, as the expert helped consider the multifactor approach—including compensation for the surety bond guaranties—and offered a well-reasoned comparison of the officer/shareholder’s salary against industry standards.



Tax professional standards statement

This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.

The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.


More tax hot topics