Fourth Circuit affirms Tax Court’s denial of reasonable compensation deduction


The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the Tax Court’s application of the multifactor test in its denial of bonus deductions for a closely held company’s CEO. In the case, the Tax Court held that a portion of compensation paid by a C corporation to its CEO and sole shareholder was unreasonable compensation under Section 162(a)(1).


The reasonable compensation issue is critical for C corporations for determining whether payments are deductible as compensation and incur only one layer of tax as compensation at the individual level, or should be considered distributions that are not deductible against corporate tax and are taxed as dividends again at the individual level.


The Tax Court had originally determined that in the Fourth Circuit — the circuit under which an appeal of the case would lie — eight main factors generally are 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 Tax Court also considered two additional factors that other circuits have considered in the context of small corporations with a limited number of officers (like the company in this case):

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

Many of the circuits have established different standards for assessing reasonable compensation, and the taxpayer argued that the court should consider the Seventh Circuit’s independent investors test. The Fourth Circuit held that, while the Seventh Circuit’s independent investor test might be reasonable to consider, along with other factors relevant to the totality of the circumstances, solely using that test “to establish a presumption of reasonableness, as the company urged, would be too narrow” in light of the “what is reasonable under all the circumstances” regulatory standard. Holding that the Tax Court did not err, the Fourth Circuit further opined that the multifactor test, by contrast, “allows for consideration of the numerous other relevant factors” listed above.




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