Professional Tax Research Solutions from the Founder of Kleinrock. tax and accounting research
Parker Tax Pro Library
Accounting News Tax Analysts professional tax research software Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter View our profile on LinkedIn Find us on Pinterest
federal tax research
Professional Tax Software
tax and accounting
Tax Research Articles Tax Research Parker's Tax Research Articles Accounting Research CPA Client Letters Tax Research Software Client Testimonials Tax Research Software tax research

Accounting Software for Accountants, CPA, Bookeepers, and Enrolled Agents

CPA Tax Software



Tax Court: Doctor's Bonus from Wholly Owned Surgical Center Not Reasonable.

(Parker Tax Publishing April 2, 2015)

The Tax Court held that a $2 million bonus paid by an eye surgery center to its head surgeon and sole shareholder was not reasonable compensation. The court rejected the taxpayer's argument that the payment, which resulted in a $50,434 net operating loss, was reasonable because of an increase in the doctor's workload and responsibilities. Midwest Eye Center, S.C. v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2015-53.


Midwest Eye Center, S.C. ("Midwest") was an eye surgery and care center, operating four different locations and employing around 50 employees during 2007. Dr. Afzal Ahmad was the C corporation's president, medical director, 100 percent shareholder, and also its CEO, COO, and CFO. On top of the various managerial tasks these positions required, Dr. Ahmad was an active surgeon in the practice and received a salary of $30,000 every other week, and also received a substantial bonus at the end of each year.

In June 2007, Dr. Ahmad's workload increased dramatically when one of Midwest's busier surgeons quit unexpectedly and Dr. Ahmad was required to take over his prescheduled patients. Additionally, Midwest's only other retinal specialist reduced her workload, requiring Dr. Ahmad to take on many of her surgeries as well.

Dr. Ahmad received four bonus payments totaling $2,000,000 toward the end of 2007. On its 2007 Form 1120, Midwest deducted $2,780,000 for Dr. Ahmad's salary and bonus compensation. The IRS determined that part of the bonus was really a disguised dividend, disallowing $1,000,000 of the claimed deduction.


Compensation is deductible as a trade or business expense if the amount is reasonable (Code Sec. 162(a)(1)). Taxpayers may deduct bonuses paid to employees as additional compensation, provided the bonus combined with the employee's salary does not exceed a reasonable compensation for the services actually rendered (Reg. Sec. 1.162-9). Amounts that would ordinarily be paid for like services by like enterprises under like circumstances are reasonable compensation (Reg. Sec. 1.162-7(b)(3)).

Midwest argued that there were no "like enterprises" under "like circumstances" from which to draw comparable salaries, instead pointing to several other reasons why Dr. Ahmad's large bonus was reasonable. Midwest pointed to his increased workload during 2007 and the various roles he performed contending the extent of Dr. Ahmad's duties, and the associated income he produced for the company, sufficiently justified the large bonus it paid him in 2007.

However, the Tax Court noted that Midwest failed to provide a methodology showing how Dr. Ahmad's bonus was determined in relation to those responsibilities. Midwest did not explain how the amount of the bonus was determined and why it was divided into four payments, nor did Midwest explain how the increased billings translated to bonus payments. Absent these explanations, the court could not find suitable evidence to show that the full $2 million bonus was reasonable.

OBSERVATION: Many reasonable compensation cases are decided under the Seventh Circuit's "independent investor test, " which asks whether an independent investor would be willing to compensate the employee as he was compensated (see Exacto Spring Corp. v. Comm'r, 196 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 1999). Courts using this test often look to other companies in the area for a suitable comparison of the employee's compensation, reasoning an investor would be satisfied if the compensation was similar to that of employees performing analogous services in analogous businesses. Because there were no comparable businesses in Midwest's region from which the court could analyze similar employee compensation, the independent investor test couldn't be used.

Because Midwest could not show the bonus payment was reasonable, the Tax Court sustained the IRS's notice of deficiency, disallowing Midwest a deduction for $1 million of Dr. Ahmad's compensation.

For a discussion of the deductibility of employment compensation, see Parker ¶91,101.10.(Staff Editor Parker Tax Publishing)

Disclaimer: 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. The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. Parker Tax Publishing 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. Parker Tax Publishing assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein.

Parker Tax Pro Library - An Affordable Professional Tax Research Solution.

Professional tax research

We hope you find our professional tax research articles comprehensive and informative. Parker Tax Pro Library gives you unlimited online access all of our past Biweekly Tax Bulletins, 22 volumes of expert analysis, 250 Client Letters, Bob Jennings Practice Aids, time saving election statements and our comprehensive, fully updated primary source library.

Parker Tax Research

Try Our Easy, Powerful Search Engine

A Professional Tax Research Solution that gives you instant access to 22 volumes of expert analysis and 185,000 authoritative source documents. But having access won’t help if you can’t quickly and easily find the materials that answer your questions. That’s where Parker’s search engine – and it’s uncanny knack for finding the right documents – comes into play

Things that take half a dozen steps in other products take two steps in ours. Search results come up instantly and browsing them is a cinch. So is linking from Parker’s analysis to practice aids and cited primary source documents. Parker’s powerful, user-friendly search engine ensures that you quickly find what you need every time you visit Our Tax Research Library.

Parker Tax Research Library

Dear Tax Professional,

My name is James Levey, and a few years back I founded a company named Kleinrock Publishing. I started Kleinrock out of frustration with the prohibitively high prices and difficult search engines of BNA, CCH, and RIA tax research products ... kind of reminiscent of the situation practitioners face today.

Now that Kleinrock has disappeared into CCH, prices are soaring again and ease-of-use has fallen by the wayside. The needs of smaller firms and sole practitioners are simply not being met.

To address the problem, I’ve partnered with a group of highly talented tax writers to create Parker Tax Publishing ... a company dedicated to the idea that comprehensive, authoritative tax information service can be both easy-to-use and highly affordable.

Our product, the Parker Tax Pro Library, is breathtaking in its scope. Check out the contents listing to the left to get a sense of all the valuable material you'll have access to when you subscribe.

Or better yet, take a minute to sign yourself up for a free trial, so you can experience first-hand just how easy it is to get results with the Pro Library!


James Levey

Parker Tax Pro Library - An Affordable Professional Tax Research Solution.

    ®2012-2018 Parker Tax Publishing. Use of content subject to Website Terms and Conditions.

IRS Codes and Regs
Tax Court Cases IRS guidance