- 36 -
to be purchased in the future or is a refundable deposit
in the nature of a loan. The parties agree that an advance
payment is includable in income in the year received but
that a deposit in the nature of a loan is not income. See
Oak Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 559, 563-564
(1991). The question presented by petitioners' motion for
summary judgment is whether the subject payment of
$1,850,000 is the latter and not the former.
As the Supreme Court noted in the leading case on this
question: "The distinction between a loan and an advance
payment is one of degree rather than of kind." Commis-
sioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 493 U.S. at 208.
Both types of transactions confer economic benefits on the
recipient, but economic benefits qualify as income only
if they are "'undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly
realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete
dominion.'" Id. at 209 (quoting Commissioner v. Glenshaw
Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955)). The key to
determining whether a taxpayer enjoys "complete dominion"
over a given sum is not whether the taxpayer has
unconstrained use of the funds during some period, but
whether the taxpayer "has some guarantee that he will be
allowed to keep the money." Id. at 210.
In the case of a loan, the recipient has no such
guaranty because the funds are acquired subject to an
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011