-19--19-
taxpayers have complete dominion.” Commissioner v. Glenshaw
Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955). Generally, proceeds of a
loan do not constitute income to a borrower because the benefit
is offset by an obligation to repay. United States v. Rochelle,
384 F.2d 748, 751 (5th Cir. 1967); Arlen v. Commissioner, 48 T.C.
640, 648-649 (1967); see Vaughan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1994-8. Whether a particular transaction actually constitutes a
loan, however, is to be determined upon consideration of all of
the facts. Fisher v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 905, 909 (1970).
Petitioners argue that the $6.7 million received from the
LAMCC was a loan and, therefore, not taxable income. Respondent
contends that the Raiders did not have an unconditional
obligation to repay the $6.7 million, and, thus, the Raiders had
taxable income upon receipt of the funds.
Petitioners cite Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light
Co., 493 U.S. 203 (1990), in support of their argument that the
$6.7 million represented a valid debt that was not includable in
the Raiders' taxable income. In that case the Supreme Court
addressed the issue of whether deposits required to assure
payment of future bills for electric service were taxable to the
power company. The Supreme Court analyzed the control and
dominion that the power company enjoyed over the deposits in
determining that the deposits did not constitute taxable income
at the time deposited.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011