Cline v. Commissioner

34 F.3d 480 (1994)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Cline v. Commissioner

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
34 F.3d 480 (1994)

CS

Facts

On June 14, 1984, Jewel Companies, Inc. (Jewel) agreed to be acquired by American Stores Company (American Stores) through a merger of Jewel with American Stores. On June 15, 1984, Richard Cline (plaintiff), a senior executive of Jewel, entered an agreement (severance agreement) with Jewel that provided for a severance benefit of three times the sum of Cline’s annual salary and target bonus if his employment was terminated due to the merger. On July 12, 1984, the severance agreement was amended to reduce the severance benefits so that the benefits would not be considered parachute payments under I.R.C. §§ 280G and 4999. Sections 280G and 4999, which had just been enacted and applied to agreements entered after June 14, 1984, provided that parachute payments—payments to a corporation’s officer contingent on a change in control of the corporation equal to three or more times a specified amount of the officer’s compensation level (base amount)—were not tax deductible by the corporation and subjected the officer to a 20 percent excise tax for the portion of the payments above the officer’s base amount (excess parachute payments). Payments of reasonable compensation for services performed after a change in control were exempt from §§ 280G and 4999. American Stores orally promised Cline it would make a good-faith effort to employ him after the merger to make up for the reduction in severance benefits. Pursuant to his severance agreement, Cline received $1,210,000 in severance pay in 1984, which was less than his base amount. Cline was employed by American Stores for a brief, post-merger transition period, from January 1, 1985, to February 3, 1985, for which he received $409,163, $109,163 of which represented salary, unused vacation time, and miscellaneous items, and $300,000 of which was a bonus. The commissioner of internal revenue (commissioner) (defendant) contended that the $300,000 bonus was not reasonable compensation and, when aggregated with the $1,210,000 in severance pay, was an excess parachute payment subject to a 20 percent excise tax. Cline challenged the excise tax in United States Tax Court, which ruled in the commissioner’s favor, holding that the bonus was a disguised parachute payment. The tax court also found that the bonus was not reasonable compensation, noting that American Stores did not consider the compensation paid to other individuals for performing similar services or typically pay bonuses to departing employees. Cline appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Ripple, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 791,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership