Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Reasonable Compensation for Law Firms and Attorneys

By Ronald L. Seigneur
August 27, 2008

A question that arises repeatedly in professional service firms is what constitutes reasonable compensation for employee-owners. For many firms, no single operating expense category impacts the bottom-line enterprise profit as much as the compensation paid to the employee-owners of the enterprise. Clearly, an expense that is discretionary to the owner in terms of its magnitude, timing and method of payment, may represent not only compensation for services rendered, but may also be a disguised dividend or a distribution of profits. The amount of profits paid as compensation determined to be “reasonable” for tax reporting purposes can easily be manipulated by adjusting the compensation paid within the ownership group.

This article is intended to provide some fundamental guidance for attorneys and law firms whenever employee-owner compensation is at issue. In many instances, this focus will relate to ownership decisions regarding the overall allocation and character of enterprise profits, but the same concepts and analytical framework can be of benefit in the assessment of reasonable compensation for other purposes, such as the valuation of a non-compete agreement and in the segregation and measurement of personal/professional versus enterprise goodwill for dissolution of marriage purposes in jurisdictions where this aspect is in play. (See Identifying and Measuring Personal Goodwill in a Professional Practice, by Mark O. Dietrich, CPA/ABV, AICPA CPA Expert, Spring 2005.) Another emerging area where these principles are often applied is in the evaluation of excess or inadequate compensation challenges by the Internal Revenue Service, with respect to closely held C corporations or Subchapter S corporations, respectively. The issue with S corporations paying too little in wages to the owners to allow them to take a larger share of enterprise profits as distributions not subject to employment taxes has received significant recent attention from the Internal Revenue Service on behalf of the Social Security administration. This article provides guidance on what factors would be considered in determinations of reasonable compensation for this purpose.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.