- 25 -
not funds held in trust. Ford Dealers Advertising Fund, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 55 T.C. at 773-774; Krim-Ko Corp. v. Commissioner,
16 T.C. at 39-40; Seven-Up Co. v. Commissioner, 14 T.C. at 977-
978.
Vendors also offered product price reduction promotions to
petitioner, whereby petitioner could withdraw funds from the
promotional accounts to pay the member stores if the member
stores purchased a specified amount of a given product. These
promotions were often associated with the aforementioned
advertising promotions. The record is skimpy regarding these
product price reduction payments. There is no evidence as to
whether the invoices received by the member stores reflected
these product allowances, nor how the member stores generally
treated them. Furthermore, petitioner has not attempted to
substantiate the portion of the promotional accounts' balance
that was allocable to these promotions. Overall, the record is
inadequate to establish whether these amounts were paid as a
rebate, a return of cooperative profits, or some other payment.
Unlike the taxpayers in Seven-Up Co. v. Commissioner, 14
T.C. 965 (1950) and Ford Dealers Advertising Fund, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 55 T.C. 761 (1971), petitioner did not act as a
mere intermediary, passing the advertising funds along to an
advertising agency. Rather, the facts and circumstances
surrounding the promotional accounts indicate that the
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011