Every tax advisor sees the same pattern play out year after year. A self-employed business owner is doing well, feels the sting of self-employment taxes, and hears online that forming an S-corporation and paying a very low salary is the solution. By the time they reach your office, they are not asking whether the strategy is sound, they are asking you to approve it.

In 2026, reasonable compensation is no longer a side conversation for S-corp owners. It is one of the most scrutinized, high-risk areas in small business tax planning. The IRS does not care that a business elected S-corporation status. What they care about is whether the owner’s wages reflect the value of the work actually performed. When wages are artificially low, audits, penalties, and reclassification issues tend to follow.

Why Reasonable Compensation Is a High-Risk Issue

Reasonable compensation is not just a payroll decision. From the IRS’s perspective, it is a proxy for several compliance issues at once. It touches payroll tax compliance, economic substance, income shifting, and how business owners extract profits from their companies.

Every dollar not paid as wages is a dollar the IRS does not collect in payroll taxes. That creates a clear enforcement incentive. If the IRS determines that an owner should have taken significantly higher wages, they can reclassify distributions as wages retroactively. That adjustment often comes with back payroll taxes, penalties, and interest dating back to the original due dates. For many business owners, the financial impact of a reasonable compensation adjustment is far greater than the tax savings they were trying to achieve.

The Most Common Mistake: Picking a Salary Without Support

Many S-corp owners choose their salary based on convenience rather than analysis. Some pick a number they heard online. Others base it on what they used to earn years ago, what helps them qualify for a mortgage, or the minimum amount needed to fund retirement contributions. None of those approaches establish reasonable compensation.

From an IRS standpoint, reasonable compensation is not a narrative. It is a documented conclusion based on market data and the owner’s actual role in the business.

A Common Audit Scenario

Consider a solo consultant earning several hundred thousand dollars in net income while taking a relatively small salary and large distributions. On paper, the structure may appear compliant. During an audit, however, the IRS will focus on a few straightforward questions. Who generates the revenue? What services does the owner personally provide? What would the market pay someone performing those same duties? When compensation is a small fraction of profits and the owner is clearly the primary revenue driver, those questions are difficult to answer convincingly without documentation.

Courts have repeatedly supported the IRS in these cases. When owners underpay themselves significantly, adjustments tend to be large and expensive.

A Defensible Reasonable Compensation Framework

A strong reasonable compensation strategy has two core elements: a supportable salary range and clear documentation explaining how that range was determined.

The process starts by defining the owner’s role the same way an employer would. This means clearly outlining job responsibilities, hours worked, revenue-generating activities, and whether the business could realistically operate without that person. Owners who perform core services, manage operations, and drive sales are providing labor with real market value.

The next step is market benchmarking. Reasonable compensation should be grounded in objective data, not assumptions. This typically involves reviewing wage data for comparable roles in the same geographic area and industry. Public wage statistics, industry compensation surveys, and real-world job listings all help establish a realistic range. The goal is not to select the lowest possible number, but a number that reflects what someone with similar responsibilities would earn in the open market.

Business economics also matter. If most of the company’s revenue is generated directly by the owner’s personal services, compensation should reflect that. If revenue is driven by employees, systems, or capital, that may justify a different balance between wages and distributions. The analysis should always tie compensation back to how the business actually makes money.

The Social Security Wage Base and Planning Trade-Offs

Another factor that often enters the discussion is the Social Security wage base. Once wages exceed that threshold, Social Security taxes no longer apply, though Medicare taxes continue. For some high-earning S-corp owners, this creates a natural planning breakpoint. However, minimizing wages purely to reduce payroll taxes can come at the cost of long-term Social Security benefits.

Reasonable compensation planning should acknowledge this trade-off. Some clients prioritize current cash flow. Others value long-term retirement benefits. A defensible strategy considers both, rather than focusing solely on short-term tax savings.

Documentation Is Not Optional

In 2026, documentation is as important as the number itself. A reasonable compensation decision should be supported by a written analysis that explains the owner’s role, references market data, and documents how the final salary was determined. This documentation protects both the business owner and the tax advisor if the IRS ever questions the position.

Well-prepared documentation serves two purposes. It provides a contemporaneous record to support the wage decision during an audit, and it demonstrates that the strategy was based on due diligence rather than guesswork.

Multi-Entity Owners Require Extra Care

Owners with multiple entities often assume their labor value can be split arbitrarily across businesses. This can create problems. If an owner performs the bulk of their work in one operating entity, wages should generally reflect that reality. Spreading compensation thinly across multiple entities without economic support can undermine the entire structure.

As payroll thresholds continue to change, coordinated planning becomes even more important for multi-entity owners. This is an area where proactive tax planning can prevent significant compliance issues.

Common Myths to Address Early

There is no fixed percentage split between salary and distributions that automatically satisfies the IRS. Ratios like 60/40 or 50/50 are not found in the tax code and offer no protection on their own. Reasonable compensation is based on labor value, not profit percentages.

It is also a mistake to assume small S-corps are immune from scrutiny. Compensation issues are relatively easy for the IRS to identify and quantify, which makes them attractive audit targets. Industry type does not eliminate the requirement either. If an owner is actively involved in the business, reasonable compensation rules still apply.

How to Frame the Conversation With Clients

Clients often view reasonable compensation discussions as a tax increase rather than risk management. Reframing the conversation is essential. The goal is not to pay the highest possible salary. The goal is to pay a salary that is defensible, documented, and aligned with how the business actually operates.

A properly structured approach reduces audit risk, limits penalty exposure, and allows the owner to enjoy the benefits of S-corporation taxation without unnecessary stress.

The Bigger Picture

Reasonable compensation is no longer just a compliance checkbox. It is a core element of S-corp tax planning and one of the areas where proactive guidance delivers the most value. In 2026, the most effective tax advisors are not the ones filing the most returns. They are the ones having these conversations early, documenting decisions carefully, and helping business owners understand both the risks and the trade-offs.

The best tax strategy is not the one that looks the most aggressive on paper. It is the one that holds up when questioned.