C Corp salaries?

Technical topics regarding tax preparation.
#1
taxcpa  
Posts:
716
Joined:
29-Apr-2014 6:47am
Location:
USA
Are owner/officers of C corps required to take a salary?

Could a person taking early social security set up a C corp, pay the corporate tax and take only dividends from the C corp? C corp could pay health benefits and establish a flex spending program as well.
 

#2
Posts:
6036
Joined:
22-Apr-2014 3:06pm
Location:
WA State
taxcpa wrote:C corp could pay health benefits and establish a flex spending program as well.


For whom are they paying these benefits? The shareholders who aren't receiving a wage?
They sound like employee benefits, but employees receive a wage. I suppose these benefits would be taxable if paid to a non-employee.
~Captcook
 

#3
mscash  
Posts:
517
Joined:
28-Apr-2014 1:26pm
Location:
Modesto, California
They are statutory employees and required to take a salary and not use other forms of payment to avoid employment tax. In my state, California everybody has to be paid at least minimum wage.
 

#4
Posts:
5698
Joined:
21-Apr-2014 7:21am
Location:
The Land
Are owner/officers of C corps required to take a salary?

Not necessarily. The concept of “reasonable salaries” applies. If someone works and the value of his work is $15k, and he receives $15k worth of benefits, for example, no salary is required.

In my state, California everybody has to be paid at least minimum wage.

I don’t think so. 20%-or-more owners, employed in a bona fined executive capacity, are exempt.
 

#5
dave829  
Account Deactivated
Posts:
1482
Joined:
9-Jan-2018 9:28pm
Location:
California
I'm with Jeff-Ohio on this one. There are many legitimate reasons why a C corp. wouldn't want to pay a salary to its owner/shareholder, and I've never known a case where the IRS requires this. On the other hand, the IRS is perfectly happy to tax the dividends at the shareholder level and not allow a deduction at the corporate level for the dividends paid.
 

#6
Nilodop  
Posts:
18751
Joined:
21-Apr-2014 9:28am
Location:
Pennsylvania
Pub 15A, about emplyment taxes:
An officer of a corporation is generally an employee; how- ever, an officer who performs no services or only minor services, and neither receives nor is entitled to receive any pay, isn't considered an employee.
 

#7
Posts:
6036
Joined:
22-Apr-2014 3:06pm
Location:
WA State
Agree that there are instances that owners may not receive a wage, but I still think there is no basis for providing employee benefits if no wage is paid.
~Captcook
 

#8
Posts:
2353
Joined:
13-Sep-2014 9:37am
Location:
U.S. Capitol
--deleted--
Last edited by Spell Czech on 15-Jul-2018 9:39am, edited 2 times in total.
 

#9
Posts:
2353
Joined:
13-Sep-2014 9:37am
Location:
U.S. Capitol
What kind of situation is that quote from Pub 15A talking about, anyway? Who's got the moxie - or the authority, either - to tell the third assistant deputy vice president for international relations that she is not "entitled to receive any pay" and thereby cause her to be not considered an employee and thereby lose her eligibility for tax-advantaged fringe benefits, because this vapid blather in Pub 15A seems to say that's the case?

btw, the use of the term "statutory employee" in mscash's post #3 above opens the door to another gnarly discussion. As we all know, the term "statutory employee" isn't defined anywhere in the tax code, but after decades of common usage that term has come to be accepted as referring to those independent contractors for whom FICA and Medicare taxes are to be collected and paid by their "employer" without making those workers *really* employees [I think]. The definitions of the handful of classes of workers who fall into this category [the "statutory employees"] are right there in the Code, at Section 3121(d)(3):
(3)any individual (other than an individual who is an employee under paragraph (1) or (2)) who performs services for remuneration for any person—
(A) as an agent-driver or commission-driver engaged in distributing meat products, vegetable products, fruit products, bakery products, beverages (other than milk), or laundry or dry-cleaning services, for his principal;
(B) as a full-time life insurance salesman;
(C) as a home worker performing work, according to specifications furnished by the person for whom the services are performed, on materials or goods furnished by such person which are required to be returned to such person or a person designated by him; or
(D) as a traveling or city salesman, other than as an agent-driver or commission-driver, engaged upon a full-time basis in the solicitation on behalf of, and the transmission to, his principal (except for side-line sales activities on behalf of some other person) of orders from wholesalers, retailers, contractors, or operators of hotels, restaurants, or other similar establishments for merchandise for resale or supplies for use in their business operations;
if the contract of service contemplates that substantially all of such services are to be performed personally by such individual; except that an individual shall not be included in the term “employee” under the provisions of this paragraph if such individual has a substantial investment in facilities used in connection with the performance of such services (other than in facilities for transportation), or if the services are in the nature of a single transaction not part of a continuing relationship with the person for whom the services are performed;
Last edited by Spell Czech on 15-Jul-2018 9:33am, edited 1 time in total.
 

#10
dave829  
Account Deactivated
Posts:
1482
Joined:
9-Jan-2018 9:28pm
Location:
California
Spell Czech, I think that mscash is referring to Sec. 3401(c):
(c) EMPLOYEE.—For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.
 

#11
Posts:
2353
Joined:
13-Sep-2014 9:37am
Location:
U.S. Capitol
Hey, that's okay with me, but doesn't it leave us with this hybrid: "The term 'employee' also includes an officer of a corporation" [in the Code] unless that person "performs no services or only minor services, and neither receives nor is entitled to receive any pay" [from the Pub]? Does anybody have any clue from where that condition in the Pub is really taken from?
 

#12
Nilodop  
Posts:
18751
Joined:
21-Apr-2014 9:28am
Location:
Pennsylvania
Sure do. Coupla places. Reg. 31.3121(d)-1
(b) Corporate officers. Generally, an officer of a corporation is an employee of the corporation. However, an officer of a corporation who as such does not perform any services or performs only minor services and who neither receives nor is entitled to receive, directly or indirectly, any remuneration is considered not to be an employee of the corporation.
and Reg, 31.3401(c)-1
(f) Generally, an officer of a corporation is an employee of the corporation. However, an officer of a corporation who as such does not perform any services or performs only minor services and who neither receives nor is entitled to receive, directly or indirectly, any remuneration is not considered to be an employee of the corporation.


Is there a nuance of difference between "is not considered" and "is considered not"?
 

#13
Nilodop  
Posts:
18751
Joined:
21-Apr-2014 9:28am
Location:
Pennsylvania
And to give you (not me) more to argue about, here's from https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0009043.pdf

2. Issues involving Corporate Officers
In the context of employment tax examinations involving payments to corporate officers, confusion can arise with respect to whether there is an “actual controversy involving a determination . . . that . . . one or more individuals performing services for such person are employees.” A common situation is where an individual is both an independent contractor for a corporate taxpayer and serves as an officer of that corporation, and the taxpayer treats all payments to the individual as payments to an independent contractor. That is, the taxpayer files forms 1099 with respect to all payments to that individual, and files no form W-2 with respect to that individual. At the audit, the Service determines that a portion of the payments to the corporate officer are for services performed in his capacity as a corporate officer and proposes an assessment of employment taxes with respect to the payments that constitute remuneration for services performed in the capacity as a corporate officer. The taxpayer asserts that no payments made to that individual are for services performed in that person’s capacity as an officer because all payments are made to the individual in his capacity as an independent contractor for the corporation. In such a situation, since the taxpayer does not treat the

5
individual as an employee, a controversy exists whether the individual is an employee. See § 3.03, Rev. Proc. 85-18, 1985-1 C.B. 518 (interpretation of term “treat”). As a result, a notice of determination should be issued.
Nor does that result change if the taxpayer admits during the audit that the individual is an employee but argues that no remuneration was received by that individual for services as an officer. Since the taxpayer has not been treating the individual as an employee, and the Service determines that the individual is performing services in his capacity as an employee, that disagreement constitutes an actual controversy involving a determination that the worker is performing services as an employee, and a notice of determination should be issued.
Some Service personnel have asserted that because corporate officers are “statutory employees,” a notice of determination need not be issued. But nothing in the statutory language of Code section 7436 makes the Tax Court’s power to review worker status limited to a determination based on the common law analysis of worker status. See also § 3.09, Rev. Proc. 85-18, supra (definition of employee for purposes of section 530 treatment is not limited to IRC § 3121(d)(2)). The Tax Court has the power to review determinations made under statutory provisions establishing worker status. Thus, whether the Service’s determination is based on the common law or a statutory provision that provides that an individual is deemed an employee (e.g., IRC § 3121(d)(1), (3)) or a statutory provision that provides that an individual is deemed to not be an employee (e.g., IRC § 3506, § 3508), so long as there exists an actual controversy involving whether a worker is an employee (and the other requirements of section 7436 are met), a notice of determination should be issued.
Some Service personnel have questioned whether an actual controversy can exist concerning the status of a corporate officer, in particular, since Code section 3121(d)(1) specifically states that “the term ‘employee’ means any officer of a corporation” and Code section 3401(c) provides that “[t]he term ‘employee’ includes a corporate officer.” They assert that since the statute classifies the corporate officer as an employee, it is impossible to have a valid controversy over the issue, so that no notice of determination should be issued. But the regulations under the statutory provisions clarify that there are circumstances under which the officer will not be considered an employee. Section 31.3121(d)-1(c) of the Employment Tax Regulations provides:
Generally, an officer of a corporation is an employee of the corporation. However, an officer of a corporation who as such does not perform any services or performs only minor services and who neither receives nor is entitled to receive, directly or indirectly, any remuneration is considered not to be an employee of the corporation. . . .

6
See also Treas. Reg. § 31.3401(c)-1)(f). Thus, where a taxpayer is asserting that the corporate officer at issue performs no services or only minor services as a corporate officer and that the officer is not entitled to remuneration in his capacity as a corporate officer, a disagreement can exist under the regulations as to whether the person is to be deemed an employee of the corporation. Because a valid legal disagreement can exist with respect to the services that are being compensated, there can exist a controversy involving the determination that an individual who is a corporate officer is an employee. So, if the other requirements for a notice of determination are met, a notice of determination should be issued despite the fact that the employment tax statutes include officers as employees.
Some Service personnel have questioned whether a notice of determination should be issued in situations involving an owner of a closely-held corporation who also performs services for the corporation. For example, the officer of a closely- held corporation is already receiving wages as an employee, but because the individual is also an owner, the corporate officer/owner is receiving profit distributions as well. In the audit, the Service determines that some of the payments characterized by taxpayer as profit distributions should be characterized as wages, subject to employment taxes. Even though the taxpayer objects to the change in the characterization of the payments, such a situation does not involve a controversy whether the individual officer/owner is an employee. The taxpayer is already treating the individual as an employee by withholding income taxes and the employee’s portion of FICA, by paying the employer’s portion of employment taxes with respect to some payments and by issuing forms W-2 with respect to the individual. When the Service determines that some of the payments are wages rather than profits, the controversy involves the proper characterization of the payments, not the proper status of the individual. Thus, when the Service asserts that additional payments to an employee should be treated as wages, the fourth requirement of section 7436 is not met and no notice of determination should be issued.
Occasionally, a closely-held corporation makes payments to its owner/officer, with some payments treated as remuneration for services in his capacity as an independent contractor for the corporation and some payments as profit distribution of the corporation. Taxpayer issues forms 1099 with respect to the payments, but no forms W-2 are issued and no employment taxes are withheld or paid. If the audit reveals that the individual is performing some services in his capacity as a corporate officer and has received remuneration for those services, then the Service determines that pursuant to Treas. Reg. § 31.3121(d)-1(c), the individual is an employee with respect to the services performed in his capacity as an officer. Since taxpayer is not already treating the individual as an employee, a controversy exists whether the owner/officer is an employee of the corporation, and a notice of determination must be issued.

7
Sometimes during the audit or appeals process, a taxpayer will agree with the Service that a corporate officer who was not treated as an employee by the taxpayer should have been classified as an employee with respect to a portion of the payments to that individual. Yet, the taxpayer disagrees with the Service as to the amount of the payments that should be treated as wages. In such circumstances, an actual controversy involving a determination by the Service that the individual is an employee does exist (because taxpayer was not treating the individual as an employee and the Service determined he was an employee) and a notice of determination must be issued. But since the taxpayer does not intend to challenge the determination that the officer is an employee, taxpayer may wish to settle that issue and waive his right to Tax Court review in the manner set forth in Notice 98-43, 1998-33 I.R.B. 13, 14. If the taxpayer explicitly waives the restrictions on assessment provided in Code sections 7436(d) and 6213(a), a notice of determination need not be issued. But if taxpayer does not wish to sign the waiver, a notice of determination must be issued.
Finally, some Service personnel have questioned whether section 530 treatment is available to taxpayers who have not treated corporate officers as employees. Section 530 treatment is available “if the taxpayer did not treat an individual as an employee.” § 530(a)(1). There is nothing in the language of section 530 that prevents a taxpayer from obtaining section 530 treatment when the Service determines that its corporate officers are employees.
Confusion may have arisen from the statutory language of section 530(c)(2), which provides that the term “employment status” means
the status of an individual, under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship. . ..
But the term “employment status” is not used in section 530(a) or any other portion of section 530 that establishes a taxpayer’s right to relief from employment taxes. Rather “employment status” is a term used in two places in section 530. First, it appears in section 530(b), which prohibited the Service from issuing guidance on employment status under the common law. The term “employment status” also appears in section 530(e)(1), which establishes that before an audit relating to employment status can begin, the Service must provide the taxpayer with a written notice of section 530. So, if a taxpayer has not treated an officer as an employee, but the taxpayer meets the various requirements for relief from employment taxes under section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978, the taxpayer will be entitled to section 530 treatment.
 

#14
Posts:
2353
Joined:
13-Sep-2014 9:37am
Location:
U.S. Capitol
The Internal Revenue Code - the Law of the Land - says, and I quote, "The term 'employee' also includes an officer of a corporation," and now they're telling us that it really should have said "The term "employee" generally may include an officer of a corporation, depending on facts and circumstances that may be included in regulations interpreting this provision."

And, I think the two phrases about considering something to be something, or not [Is there a nuance of difference between "is not considered" and "is considered not"?], have different meanings, but most writers and most readers just blur them together. Only Jack went only to the only store only.
 

#15
makbo  
Posts:
6840
Joined:
23-Apr-2014 3:44pm
Location:
In The Counting House
Spell Czech wrote:vapid blather in Pub 15A

Shouldn't most writing in the pubs and instructions be vapid and banal, so as to encourage accuracy and avoid controversy? If they were written like exciting, mouth-watering works of fiction, you'd be among the first to complain about that. And I'm pretty sure you are misusing the term blather here, in regard to the very brief statement excerpted.
 

#16
Posts:
5698
Joined:
21-Apr-2014 7:21am
Location:
The Land
but I still think there is no basis for providing employee benefits if no wage is paid.

The basis is described above: If services worth $15k are given, and the value received in return is $15k, no matter what that return value is comprised of, we have reasonable compensation. It is the overall compensation package that is examined, as case law indicates. You see “benefits only” employees quite frequently when one spouse owns a Schedule C business and the other spouse works for the business.
 

#17
makbo  
Posts:
6840
Joined:
23-Apr-2014 3:44pm
Location:
In The Counting House
Spell Czech wrote:btw, the use of the term "statutory employee" in mscash's post #3 above opens the door to another gnarly discussion.

The term has two meanings, depending on context. One meaning involves the four categories of worker you quoted. The other meaning involves the difference between common law employees, and employees who are treated as such by statute.

Back to the quibble you have with the legal language. It would be like saying "the term 'pregnant mammal' includes a platypus carrying eggs". That doesn't mean all platypuses are pregnant mammals, just as the language quoted in this thread doesn't mean all corporate officers are employees. It means that just because you are a corporate officer, you are not exempt from being an employee if you meet other necessary conditions.

If the legal language was as precise and unambiguous as you imply it should be, it would be exactly like computer code, and we wouldn't need any courts.
 

#18
makbo  
Posts:
6840
Joined:
23-Apr-2014 3:44pm
Location:
In The Counting House
taxcpa wrote:Could a person taking early social security set up a C corp, pay the corporate tax and take only dividends from the C corp?

What business is the corp in, in other words how does it make its money? What role does this person "setting up a C corp" play in the activity?

You also mention "taking early social security" -- presumably someone who is subject to the rules about taking benefits younger than full retirement age and make more than the yearly earnings limit, in which case earnings may reduce the benefit amount. That's not a tax question per se, but I believe SSA can and will audit suspicious cases involving earnings over which the applicant has direct control.
 

#19
makbo  
Posts:
6840
Joined:
23-Apr-2014 3:44pm
Location:
In The Counting House
Jeff-Ohio wrote:You see “benefits only” employees quite frequently when one spouse owns a Schedule C business and the other spouse works for the business.

Or, for example this: "While many executives who take a one-dollar salary also choose not to take any other forms of compensation, a number earn millions more in bonuses and/or other forms of compensation. For example, in 2010–11 Oracle's founder and CEO Larry Ellison made only $1 in salary, but earned over $77 million in other forms of compensation." [Wikipedia]
 

#20
Posts:
2353
Joined:
13-Sep-2014 9:37am
Location:
U.S. Capitol
"If the legal language was as precise and unambiguous..."
If the legal language were as precise and unambiguous... ;)
 

Next

Return to Taxation



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], JoJoCPA, rkrcpa and 111 guests