- 21 -
v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 391, 395 (1967); Seven-Up Co. v.
Commissioner, supra at 977.
To establish the terms of the promotional account
agreements, petitioner presented several witnesses, including its
chairman, two of its officers, two current employees, and a
former employee. Each of these individuals testified that
petitioner did not own the promotional account funds.7 But none
of these individuals clearly articulated the terms of the
agreements between the vendors and petitioner with respect to the
promotional accounts. Due to the relationship between petitioner
and these individuals and the imprecise nature of their testimony
with respect to the promotional account agreements, these
witnesses did not aid petitioner in establishing that it was a
nontaxable intermediary with respect to the promotional accounts.
In addition to the testimonial evidence, petitioner
submitted two written promotional account agreements between
petitioner and Colgate. These agreements indicate that Colgate
will reimburse petitioner for its cost of rendering special event
promotions, provided petitioner substantiates such expenditures
through a "Certificate of Performance" and other supporting
documentation. The Colgate agreements do not, however, indicate
that funds from the promotional accounts can be used to make cash
7 We note that such testimony appears inconsistent with
petitioner's treatment of these accounts on its 1988 books.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011