INSIGHTS AND RESOURCES
Tax Court holds improperly documented management fees not deductible
INSIGHT ARTICLE |
Authored by RSM US LLP
The Tax Court recently held in Aspro, Inc. v. Commissioner that a corporation, which was closely held by three shareholders, could not deduct management fees paid to its shareholders because the payments were in fact distributions instead of compensation expenses paid purely for services rendered and reasonable in amount. While the management fees at issue in Aspro are distinguishable from management fees paid by private equity (PE) portfolio companies to management companies, which typically hold a small indirect investment in the portfolio company, the case serves as a warning to properly support and document management fees.
In general, compensation payments from a corporation to its shareholders are closely scrutinized to ensure they are not disguised distributions to shareholders subject to treatment under section 301. Further, taxpayers bear the burden of proving entitlement to any deductions claimed, and the Code and Regulations require taxpayers to maintain records sufficient to establish the amount of any deduction claimed.
Under section 162, all ordinary and necessary business expenses paid or incurred by a corporation, including salaries or other compensation for personal services rendered, are deductible. More specifically, compensation payments are deductible if the payments are both purely for services and reasonable under the circumstances. Whether or not payments are purely for services is a facts and circumstances test. Reasonableness is determined by comparing the payment to the amount that would be paid for similar services by a similar business under similar circumstances.
In Aspro, the petitioner was a C corporation with an asphalt paving business. The petitioner had three shareholders, an individual owning 20% of the stock and two corporations each owning 40% of the stock. During the tax years at issue, the petitioner did not declare any dividends or make any distributions to the shareholders, but paid management fees to each shareholder at the end of every tax year.
The Tax Court first considered whether the management fees were “purely for services,” as required by Reg. section 1.162-7(a). The Court noted the absence of any distributions made to the shareholders and that the amount of the management fees would significantly reduce the petitioner’s taxable income if permitted as a deduction. The management fees were paid in amounts that approximately corresponded to each shareholder’s ownership interests in petitioner, suggesting the payments were distributions with respect to each shareholders’ stock. In general, portfolio company management fees paid to fund management companies are distinguishable from the scenario in Aspro, as such fees are usually an annual fee based on a set percent of the total committed capital instead of an amount relative to the management’s ownership in the fund.
In addition, the Court concluded that petitioner’s process of setting management fees was unstructured and had little if any relation to the services performed. The fees were not set in advance of the services provided, and no explanation was given as to how the petitioner determined the amount of the fees. Other factors relevant to the Court’s conclusion were (i) the management fees were not paid throughout the tax year as the services were provided, but instead as a single lump sum at the end of the tax year; and (ii) in the case of the two corporate shareholders, the payments were made to the shareholders and not the entities and individuals that purportedly performed the services. As a result, the Tax Court held that the management fees were not payments purely for services; therefore, they were not deductible.
The Tax Court also considered whether the amount of the management fees was reasonable. Concerning the two corporate shareholders, no documents or written agreements existed regarding the services to be performed, and the shareholders never sent invoices to petitioner for services rendered. Further, the petitioner neither provided evidence of what a similarly situated business would pay for the services nor explained the cost of each particular service or how it determined the fees.
As the individual shareholder was also an employee of the petitioner-corporation (i.e., its president), the Court separately addressed whether the management fees were reasonable when added to the individual’s existing compensation. The Court considered a number of factors relevant to determining whether the amount paid to a shareholder-employee is reasonable. Of significance is the Court’s conclusion that (i) the individual was overcompensated after taking into account the management fees; and (ii) while the petitioner’s operating margins were strong before taking into account the management fees, its margins were weak after including such fees as expenses.
As a result, the Tax Court concluded that the management fees paid to each of the two corporate shareholders and the individual shareholder were not reasonable; therefore, they were not deductible.
Aspro reinforces that management fees paid to shareholders are closely scrutinized to determine if the payments are more properly characterized as distributions with respect to stock instead of being deductible ordinary and necessary business expenses. Taxpayers bear the burden of maintaining records that demonstrate compensation payments are both reasonable and purely for services rendered. Aspro serves as a reminder that taxpayers seeking to deduct compensation payments must appropriately document and value such payments.
 T.C. Memo 2021-8.
See Charles Schneider & Co., v. Comm’r, 500 F.2d 148, 152 (8th Cir. 1974); Heil Beauty Supplies, Inc. v. Comm’r, 199 F.2d 193, 194 (8th Cir. 1952).
 See INDOPCO, Inc. v. Comm’r, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992).
 Section 6001; Reg. section 1.6001-1(a).
 Section 162(a)(1); Reg. section 1.162-7(a).
 Reg. sections 1.162-7(a), (b)(1), and (b)(3).
 Am. Sav. Bank. v. Comm’r, 56 T.C. 828 (1971).
 Reg. section 1.162-7(b)(3).
 Citing to Paul E. Kummer Realty Co. v. Comm’r, 511 F.2d 313, 315 (8th Cir. 1975); Nor-Cal Adjusters v. Comm’r, 503 F.2d 359, 362-363 (9th Cir. 1974); Charles Scheider & Co., supra, note 2.
 Citing to Owensby & Kritikos, Inc. v. Comm’r, 819 F.2d 1215, 1325-1326 (5th Cir. 1987); Nor-Cal Adjusters, supra note 9; Wycoff v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo 2017-203.
 Citing to Reg. section 1.167-2(b)(1); Paul E. Kummer Realty Co., supra, note 9.
 Citing to Nor-Cal Adjusters, supra note 9.
Call us at +1 213.873.1700, email us at firstname.lastname@example.org or fill out the form below and we'll contact you to discuss your specific situation.
This article was written by Nick Gruidl, Sarah Lieberman, Eric Brauer and originally appeared on 2021-02-10.
2020 RSM US LLP. All rights reserved.
The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. RSM US LLP guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for results obtained by others as a result of reliance upon such information. RSM US LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein. This publication does not, and is not intended to, provide legal, tax or accounting advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors concerning the application of tax laws to their particular situations. This analysis is not tax advice and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer.
RSM US Alliance provides its members with access to resources of RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance member firms are separate and independent businesses and legal entities that are responsible for their own acts and omissions, and each is separate and independent from RSM US LLP. RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax, and consulting firms. Members of RSM US Alliance have access to RSM International resources through RSM US LLP but are not member firms of RSM International. Visit rsmus.com/about us for more information regarding RSM US LLP and RSM International. The RSM logo is used under license by RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance products and services are proprietary to RSM US LLP.
Vasquez & Company LLP is a proud member of the RSM US Alliance, a premier affiliation of independent accounting and consulting firms in the United States. RSM US Alliance provides our firm with access to resources of RSM US LLP, the leading provider of audit, tax and consulting services focused on the middle market. RSM US LLP is a licensed CPA firm and the U.S. member of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax and consulting firms with more than 43,000 people in over 120 countries.
Our membership in RSM US Alliance has elevated our capabilities in the marketplace, helping to differentiate our firm from the competition while allowing us to maintain our independence and entrepreneurial culture. We have access to a valuable peer network of like-sized firms as well as a broad range of tools, expertise and technical resources.
For more information on how Vasquez & Company LLP can assist you, please call +1 213.873.1700.
Subscribe to receive important updates from our Insights and Resources.