(Part I of III) This article about excess compensation is comprised of three-parts. Part one summarizes the facts regarding Clary Hood, Inc. v. Commissioner and the U.S. Tax Court’s holding. Part two of this series describes the Tax Court’s analysis and conclusions regarding the reasonableness of compensation issues. Part three describes the Tax Court’s analysis and conclusions regarding Section 6662 penalty issues. Introduction There are many reasons why valuation analysts and other professional advisers are asked to analyze—and opine on—the reasonableness of the amount of compensation paid to the employees of a private company or institution. Assessing the reasonableness of…
-
-
Knowing what to do when your client receives a notice from the Internal Revenue Service can be a useful skill. Here are 13 pointers, from what to do when the IRS sends a notice of deficiency to whether to extend the statute of limitation. To read the full article in The Tax Adviser, click: IRS Notice Response Tips Everyone Should Know.
-
Settlement of a Valuation Case Before the U.S. Tax Court This article discusses issues found in a case that is pending before the United States Tax Court (the “Tax Court”). The specific issues relate to issues regarding sales of closely held stock to grantor trusts in exchange for promissory notes. Specifically, the IRS took issue with two grantor sale trust transactions. The two cases were filed on December 26, 2013, as (1) Estate of Donald Woelbing v. Commissioner, Docket No. 30261-13, and (2) Estate of Marion Woelbing v. Commissioner, Docket No. 30260-13.
-
Failure to make capital contributions did not void the operating agreement or reduce the ownership interest of non-complying partners In Grove v Brown, the Delaware Court of Chancery, relying on the unambiguous terms of a limited liability company (LLC) operating agreement, found that a member’s failure to make an initial capital contribution to a LLC did not affect that member’s ownership interest. Further, the Court of Chancery, applying default fiduciary duties to the managing members found that two managing members breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty under the corporate opportunity doctrine.