- 38 -
Kansas City S. Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C.
242 (1992) (deposits charged by railroad to build side
track); Oak Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra
(security deposit collected by subscription TV company
upon installation of electronic decoder box); Houston
Industries, Inc. v. United States, 32 Fed. Cl. 202 (1994)
(fuel cost overrecoveries received by a public utility
company).
On the other hand, if the recipient of the payment
controls the conditions under which the payment will be
repaid or refunded, we have held that the recipient has
some guaranty that it will be allowed to keep the money,
and hence, the recipient enjoys complete dominion over the
payment. Milenbach v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 184 (1996);
Michaelis Nursery, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-
143. For example, Milenbach v. Commissioner, supra,
involved a payment of $6.7 million by the Los Angeles
Memorial Coliseum Commission to the Los Angeles Raiders.
The agreement under which the payment was made provided
that the money was to be repaid from revenues derived from
the operation of suites to be constructed by the Raiders at
the Los Angeles Coliseum. In view of the fact that the
construction of the suites was within the sole control of
the Raiders, and the fact that there was no default or
alternative payment provision, we found that the Raiders
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