Sheldon R. and Phyllis Milenbach, et al. - Page 20

                                       -20--20-                                          
               IPL hardly enjoyed “complete dominion” over the                        
               customer deposits entrusted to it.  Rather, these                      
               deposits were acquired subject to an express                           
               “obligation to repay,” either at the time service was                  
               terminated or at the time a customer established good                  
               credit.  So long as the customer fulfills his legal                    
               obligation to make timely payments, his deposit                        
               ultimately is to be refunded, and both the timing and                  
               method of that refund are largely within the control of                
               the customer.  [Id. at 209.]                                           
          The Supreme Court’s reasoning does not support petitioners’                 
          position.  Under the terms of the 1982 MOA, the Raiders, the                
          borrower, controlled whether or not repayment of the $6.7 million           
          would be triggered.  In contrast, in Commissioner v. Indianapolis           
          Power & Light Co., supra, the customer, i.e., the lender,                   
          controlled whether or not the deposit was returned by making                
          timely payments of the utility bills.  The Raiders, unlike the              
          power company, were not subject to an express obligation to repay           
          within the lender’s control.                                                
               The Raiders had the discretion to determine if and when the            
          suites would be constructed, as demonstrated by the terms of the            
          1982 MOA and the 1984 lease.  Although both documents limited the           
          Raiders’ discretion by a standard of reasonableness, the                    
          agreements gave the Raiders great latitude in the timing of                 
          construction.                                                               
               Where the performance of a party’s obligations under a                 
          contract is subject to such party’s unlimited discretion, the               
          duties ostensibly imposed upon that party are illusory for income           
          tax purposes.  See Schulz v. Commissioner, 686 F.2d 490, 494 (7th           





Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011