The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the widely-discussed Iowa District Court opinion in Watson. The district court required an one-shareholder S corporation owning an interest in a CPA practice to pay employment taxes on about $90,000 of compensation, even though the S corporation issued the shareholder a W-2 for only $24,000. The partnership reported around $200,000 of K-1 income to the S corporation.
This is an extreme example of the so-called “John Edwards Shelter,” where an owner pays less employment tax by earning income through an S corporation than might be paid if the business were reported through a partnership or a Schedule C. It shows that there are limits to how low courts will allow S corporation shareholders to set their compensation; it also stands for the case that a professional business doesn’t have to pay 100% of its earnings as taxable compensation subject to FICA.
I’m tied up with work today, so I will follow up later when I can.
Links:
Eighth Circuit Decision
District Court Decision
Related Tax Update Coverage:
Court sets ‘reasonable’ comp for Iowa CPA S corporation shareholder
What do Newt and John Edwards have in common?
Tags: John Edwards Shelter, reasonable compensation, S corporations, Watson
Joe Kristan writes the Tax Update items, and any opinions expressed or implied are not necessarily shared by anyone else at Roth & Company, P.C. Address questions or comments on Tax Updates to
[...] Eighth Circuit upholds ‘Watson’ decision requiring increased comp for CPA S corporation sharehol…; When professional C corporations go [...]
[...] his S corporation had to report as compensation around $90,000 of the income; the Eighth Circuit upheld the ruling in February (David E. Watson, P.C. v. U.S). The tax law imposes payroll taxes on compensation, [...]
[...] Anthony Nitti, The Top Ten Tax Cases Of 2012, #4: S Corporation Reasonable Compensation – How Much Is Enough?. The much discussed Watson case. [...]
[...] wasn’t like the CPA who earned around $200,000 from his busienss and reported salary of only $24,000. Yet the IRS didn’t let the taxpayer’s financial ruin stand in the way of [...]