- 34 -
that, in order to qualify as a volume discount, the discount must
be set forth in a formula, and the volume of product to be
purchased in order to qualify for the discount must be specified.
However, the discounts here are not volume discounts. Many
different arrangements can constitute a reduction in sale price.
Cf. Max Sobel Wholesale Liquors v. Commissioner, 630 F.2d 670,
671-672 (9th Cir. 1980), affg. 69 T.C. 477 (1977); Dixie Dairies
Corp. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 476, 489-492 (1980); Haas Bros.,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 1217 (1980); Tri-State Beverage
Distribs., Inc. v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. 1026, 1029-1031 (1957);
Pittsburgh Milk Co. v. Commissioner, 26 T.C. 707 (1956);
Convergent Technologies, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-
320. In Mississippi Chem. Corp. v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 627,
640 (1986), we noted that the common thread running through Max
Sobel, Dixie Dairies, Haas Brothers, and Pittsburgh Milk is that
there was an agreement between the taxpayer and its customers,
entered into prior to the sale of the product, providing for the
refund of some part of the purchase price. We are satisfied that
this common thread runs through the rebates paid by petitioner to
its dealers.
There is no doubt that the various facets of petitioner's
rebate program did not lend themselves to expression by a
numerical formula. Nonetheless, if the individual factors
separately would qualify as a purchase price reduction, then the
factors taken as a whole would qualify as a purchase price
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011