Client placed rental property in S corp - Is owner compensation required?

This is a common misconception I see quite often. While you're right that rental property in an S corp isn't ideal, the compensation question requires careful consideration. The IRS expects S corporation shareholders who provide services to receive "reasonable compensation" through W-2 wages. The key question is whether the owners are providing actual services to the rental business. If they're managing the property (finding tenants, handling repairs, etc.), then yes, they should receive compensation for those services. If they're truly passive and using a property management company that handles everything, you could potentially argue against the need for W-2 compensation. Remember that the IRS closely scrutinizes S corps where shareholders take minimal or no salary while receiving distributions, as this can be seen as avoiding payroll taxes. You need to evaluate what services the owners are actually performing and document your position carefully.

After dealing with a similar situation last year, I found this amazing resource that saved me tons of research time - https://taxr.ai helped me analyze the exact requirements for S corp compensation with rental properties. They analyzed my operating agreement and all the documentation showing exactly what services were being performed. The site basically confirmed what I suspected - that compensation requirements depend on whether owners provide active services. They showed me how to properly document and categorize owner activities to support our position. They also identified several tax planning opportunities I hadn't considered for improving the overall structure.

Just wanted to follow up about my experience with taxr.ai after checking it out. I was initially skeptical but decided to try it with a similar S-corp rental property situation. The analysis they provided was surprisingly detailed and specific to my client's situation. They actually identified that my client was performing minimal services (about 2 hours monthly) and provided documentation templates to support treating most of the income as passive. They also showed us how to properly structure the minimal compensation required for the actual services performed. Saved me from hours of research and gave me confidence in our position if questioned by the IRS. Definitely more helpful than I expected.

I dealt with a similar situation last year and spent HOURS trying to get through to someone at the IRS who could give me a straight answer about the compensation requirements. Finally found https://claimyr.com and used their service to get connected to an IRS agent in about 20 minutes (instead of the 3+ hours I wasted earlier). You can see how it works here: https://youtu.be/_kiP6q8DX5c The IRS agent confirmed that compensation is only required for actual services performed. We documented what qualified as active management versus passive investment, and maintained a small W-2 for the minimal services while treating the rest as distributions. Saved my client thousands while keeping them compliant.

I have to eat my words about Claimyr. After our conversation, I decided to try it myself for a different tax issue I'd been putting off dealing with. Got through to someone in about 35 minutes (compared to my previous attempts where I gave up after 2+ hours on hold). While they didn't give me specific planning advice as expected, the agent was able to clarify the regulatory requirements around S-corp compensation for different types of business activities. The key takeaway was that compensation is tied to services performed, not passive investment activities. This actually helped confirm our approach with several clients where we've been documenting the difference between active management and passive ownership.

I think everyone's missing an important technical point here. Per Rev. Rul. 74-44, an S corp must pay reasonable compensation for services rendered. But rental activities are specifically excluded from the definition of a "trade or business" under IRC 1402(a)(1) for self-employment tax purposes. So if the S corp is ONLY engaged in rental activity, and shareholders aren't providing substantial services beyond what's typical for a passive investor, there's a reasonable argument that no W-2 compensation is required.

Has anyone considered suggesting they convert to a partnership or LLC? Might be worth exploring if holding in an S corp is causing more headaches than benefits. Especially with the TCJA 199A deduction considerations.

I've handled several similar situations, and the key is really documenting the level of services the owners actually provide. If they're truly passive (using a property management company, minimal involvement in tenant selection, repairs handled by others), you can make a strong case for minimal or no compensation. However, I'd be cautious about completely eliminating W-2s if they've been issuing them consistently. A middle ground approach might work better - reduce the compensation to reflect only the actual services performed (maybe equivalent to what you'd pay for bookkeeping, tax prep coordination, major decision-making) while treating the rest as distributions. The documentation is crucial here. Keep detailed records of what services the owners actually perform, time spent, and how decisions are made. This will support your position whether you go with minimal compensation or argue for none at all.

This is a nuanced situation that I've encountered multiple times in my practice. The consensus here is correct - the compensation requirement hinges on whether the owners are providing actual services versus passive investment. One practical approach I've used successfully is conducting a "services audit" with the client. Document everything: Who handles tenant screening? Lease negotiations? Maintenance coordination? Financial reporting? Even if they use a property management company, there are often oversight duties that constitute services. For clients transitioning away from W-2s after years of issuing them, I recommend a phased approach over 2-3 years while building strong documentation. Start by reducing compensation to reflect only actual services performed, then potentially eliminate it entirely if the documentation supports truly passive ownership. Also consider the state tax implications - some states may have different rules or be more aggressive in examining S corp compensation. The federal position is only part of the equation. The key is having a defensible position backed by solid documentation. Better to be conservative and pay some modest compensation than face an audit where you can't substantiate a zero-compensation position.