ARTICLE | December 19, 2025

In closely held C corporations, it’s common for owner-shareholders to also serve as key employees. That dual role opens up significant planning opportunities, but also invites scrutiny. One major risk? Excessive salaries that the IRS may recharacterize as disguised dividends.

The issue isn’t just academic. Reclassification can result in disallowed deductions, unexpected tax liabilities, and penalties, not to mention the disruption of an IRS audit. For owner-operators, board members, and even passive shareholders in closely held C corps, understanding where compensation crosses the line into nondeductible dividends is an important consideration for avoiding IRS challenges and protecting after-tax profits.

What are disguised dividends?

Disguised dividends arise when payments made to shareholder-employees are labeled as wages but, in substance, serve as returns on equity. Unlike salaries, which are tax-deductible to the corporation, dividends are not. Dividends must be paid from after-tax corporate earnings and are typically taxed again at the shareholder level – creating double taxation.

This distinction creates a clear incentive: compensate shareholders through deductible wages instead of nondeductible dividends, especially in closely held C corporations where ownership and control are concentrated in a few individuals.

Here’s how the potential for abuse can arise: 

• The corporation pays inflated “salaries” to shareholder-employees, deducting those wages as a business expense and thereby reducing corporate income tax.
• The shareholder-employee reports that income as wages, subject to ordinary income tax and payroll taxes, but the net benefit can still be favorable, especially if the alternative is receiving dividends taxed from already-taxed corporate income.
• Meanwhile, minority shareholders (if any) may receive little or no dividends, even if the company is profitable, raising fairness and governance concerns.
• And importantly, unlike dividends, wages don’t have to be distributed in proportion to ownership, so a majority shareholder can capture more corporate profits through salary alone.

While dividends may be taxed at lower capital gains rates, they don’t reduce the corporation’s tax liability, and they must be shared proportionally among shareholders. For an owner with significant control and high stock ownership, taking compensation as salary allows for more targeted profit extraction, better control of timing and tax treatment, and a cleaner optics story: “I’m being paid for services rendered,” rather than “I’m pulling out profits.”

This is why the IRS views excessive compensation in closely held corporations with skepticism: the potential for self-dealing is significant, and the ability to disguise nondeductible dividends as deductible wages directly erodes corporate tax revenue.

Understanding this incentive structure helps explain both the risk of abuse and the importance of carefully structuring and documenting compensation decisions to withstand IRS scrutiny.

How the IRS evaluates reasonable compensation

The IRS does not apply a one-size-fits-all formula when assessing whether compensation is “reasonable.” Instead, it applies a facts-and-circumstances test that considers several interrelated factors, including:

• The employee’s qualifications, experience, and duties
• The amount and type of services performed
• Salaries paid by comparable businesses
• The company’s size, complexity, and financial condition
• Compensation history and internal consistency
• The relationship between shareholder status and compensation

These criteria are outlined in the IRS’s Reasonable Compensation Job Aid, which was designed to provide internal guidance to valuation analysts during audits. 

A useful lens: the Exacto Spring “independent investor” test

While various courts have developed frameworks for evaluating reasonable compensation, one of the more practical and widely discussed is the independent investor test from Exacto Spring Corp. v. Commissioner (196 F.3d 833). 

In this case, the Seventh Circuit held that:

“If a hypothetical independent investor were satisfied with the company’s return after compensating the shareholder-employee, then the compensation is presumed to be reasonable.”

The court reasoned that investors care about their return on equity. If that return remains healthy even after paying the owner-employee, then it’s a strong indication that the compensation is aligned with value creation, not disguised profit extraction.

This approach is particularly helpful for closely held businesses where traditional comparables or salary surveys may not fully reflect the owner’s role. For example, a founder-CEO who builds a business from scratch may simultaneously act as chief strategist, rainmaker, and operations manager. If the company is producing solid profits and delivering returns beyond what passive investors would expect, a high salary may be justified.

Important note: the Exacto Spring test is binding in the Seventh Circuit is not a universal legal standard. Other circuits may emphasize different factors. All reasonable compensation determinations are highly fact-specific, and while the independent investor perspective can offer a helpful lens, it should be used as a conceptual tool – not as a legal safe harbor. 

When the IRS recharacterizes compensation: lessons from Tax Court

Numerous Tax Court cases illustrate how the IRS challenges unreasonable compensation, and the rulings offer valuable insight into what courts look for. These decisions show a consistent theme: unsubstantiated, inflated, or poorly structured pay is vulnerable to reclassification as a disguised dividend. 

LabelGraphics, Inc. v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo 1998-343)

In the case of LabelGraphics, Inc., the court reclassified large year-end bonuses paid to two shareholder-employees as disguised dividends. While the corporation had been profitable, the bonuses were not linked to performance criteria or profitability targets, and the payments exceeded prior years’ compensation without justification. The court emphasized that the company ended the year with negative equity after issuing these bonuses – strong evidence that the payments were not a reward for value created, but rather a method for siphoning profits.

Key takeaway: Courts have looked favorably on bonuses tied to measurable performance or company metrics. Paying large, arbitrary bonuses (especially when they deplete the company’s capital) can signal disguised profit distributions. 

Hood v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo 2022-15)

In Hood v. Commissioner, the IRS challenged compensation paid to the sole shareholder of a C corporation engaged in equipment leasing. The owner paid himself a salary far exceeding industry norms, despite limited involvement in day-to-day operations. The court found that while the taxpayer had valuable technical expertise, the compensation bore no reasonable correlation to actual services performed.

The court ultimately allowed a portion of the salary that reflected his advisory role but reclassified the rest as a nondeductible dividend. 

Key takeaway: even highly skilled owners can’t justify excessive compensation unless it matches the scope, nature, and time commitment of their role. Courts look beyond titles – they want to see what work is actually being done. 

Judicial themes and red flags

In both cases, the courts focused on several key issues: 

• Lack of performance-based justification for pay increases or bonuses
• No written compensation policy or formula
• Salary levels that exceeded norms without supporting comparables
• Compensation disconnected from services rendered
• Payments made despite weak or deteriorating company finances

These factors undermine the argument that compensation was strictly for services and open the door for the IRS to argue that the payments were equity distributions in disguise. 

Consequences of reclassification

If the IRS determines that part of an owner-employee’s compensation is actually a disguised dividend, several tax consequences may follow. These can include:

• Loss of deduction for the disallowed salary
• Recharacterized dividend income, taxable to the shareholder.
• Corporate tax exposure increases due to reduced deductions.
• Penalties, including 20% accuracy-related penalties under IRC §6662, may apply.

Additionally, reclassification can lead to IRS scrutiny in future tax years or even open up examinations of related-party transactions. 

Because penalty assessments often hinge on facts and intent, it’s essential to consult with a qualified tax professional or legal advisor in contentious or high-stakes cases. 

Proactive steps to minimize risk

While the IRS offers no “safe harbor” for reasonable compensation, there are several strategies that can help support defensible compensation practices:

Benchmark with compensation studies

Start with data. Use third-party compensation surveys, industry comparables, or valuation reports tailored to closely held businesses to set baseline salary levels. Courts and auditors consistently look for external validation that compensation aligns with market norms.

Compensation that significantly exceeds industry standards without strong justification will likely raise red flags. 

Document the rationale

Maintain detailed records that show how compensation decisions are made and approved. This may include:

• Written compensation arrangements
• Board meeting minutes authorizing salaries or bonuses
• Memos explaining any deviations from prior compensation patterns
• Rationale for increases tied to expanded responsibilities or performance

Documentation creates a contemporaneous paper trail that demonstrates thoughtful planning, not after-the-fact justification. In the absence of documentation, courts may assume compensation decisions were driven by tax motives rather than business logic. 

Separate compensation and distributions

Avoid structuring compensation in a way that could be perceived as a substitute for dividends. If the business is profitable, it may make sense to issue formal dividends in addition to a fair salary to reinforce the distinction between compensation for services and returns on capital.

This is especially important in companies with multiple shareholders, where equity distributions must be made proportionally.

Allocate pay based on roles

If the owner wears multiple hats (e.g., CEO, CFO, marketing head), allocate pay proportionately based on time spent and value delivered in each role. Avoid using flat compensation that’s untethered to function. This allocation should also reflect whether certain tasks could be outsourced for less. 

A planning opportunity – and a pitfall to avoid

Disguised dividends represent a quiet but potent threat to closely held C corporations. The flexibility of a C-corp structure allows owners to tailor their compensation, but with that flexibility comes risk. Excessive or poorly documented pay can invite IRS scrutiny and could unravel the structure’s tax benefits.

Annual reviews of compensation levels, use of benchmarking tools, and coordination with corporate legal counsel can prevent costly mistakes and bolster audit resilience.

If your compensation strategy hasn’t been evaluated recently, or if bonuses and salaries have grown significantly, now is the time to revisit the numbers. A properly structured and well-documented pay package can help mitigate audit risk and support tax efficiency.

For more personalized guidance, please contact our office. 

This article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Compensation planning involves complex tax and legal considerations. Readers are encouraged to consult with a qualified tax professional and, where appropriate, legal counsel before making decisions related to shareholder compensation or corporate distributions.