Haag v. Commissioner Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A physician formed a professional corporation (P.C.) and received little salary, using the P.C.’s medical income to offset losses from other businesses. The court rejected an assignment-of-income challenge but reallocated income to the physician under § 482 because his compensation was not at arm’s length.
Legal Significance: This case demonstrates that while a valid personal service corporation can defeat an assignment-of-income challenge, the IRS can still use § 482 to reallocate income if the shareholder-employee’s compensation does not reflect an arm’s-length transaction, considering all of the corporation’s legitimate business activities.
Haag v. Commissioner Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Dr. Stanley Haag, a physician in a medical partnership (Hilltop), formed a professional corporation (P.C.) and assigned his partnership interest to it. He also transferred his farming and dog kennel operations to the P.C., which consistently generated substantial losses. The P.C. had a formal employment agreement with Haag. For the years 1979 and 1980, the P.C. reported significant income from the medical practice but paid Haag little to no salary. Instead, Haag and the P.C. engaged in a series of undocumented “loans” and withdrawals. The P.C. used the medical income to absorb the losses from the farming and kennel operations, thereby reducing its overall taxable income. The Commissioner determined that the income earned by the P.C. from the medical practice should be taxed directly to Haag, asserting both the assignment of income doctrine under § 61 and the reallocation authority of § 482.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May the Commissioner reallocate income from a physician’s validly formed professional corporation to the physician himself under § 482 when the physician’s total compensation from the corporation is not equivalent to what he would have received in an arm’s-length transaction?
Yes. The Commissioner’s reallocation of income is upheld for the years in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in re
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
May the Commissioner reallocate income from a physician’s validly formed professional corporation to the physician himself under § 482 when the physician’s total compensation from the corporation is not equivalent to what he would have received in an arm’s-length transaction?
Conclusion
This case establishes that even if a personal service corporation is a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labo
Legal Rule
Under I.R.C. § 482, the Commissioner may reallocate income between two or Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure do
Legal Analysis
The court first rejected the Commissioner's assignment of income argument under § Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt u
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A personal service corporation (P.C.), not its sole shareholder-employee, is the