- 22 -
though it is withheld in a reserve account to secure the
retailer's guaranty obligations and is subject to forfeiture to
the extent that the interest otherwise payable to the finance
company under the installment paper is either abated, as a result
of the consumer's prepayment of the balance of his debt, or
becomes uncollectible. Resale Mobile Homes, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 965 F.2d 818 (10th Cir. 1992), affg. 91 T.C. 1085
(1988); Shapiro v. Commissioner, 295 F.2d 306 (9th Cir. 1961),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1959-151; Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 51 T.C. 500 (1968), affd. on other issues 426 F.2d
417 (6th Cir. 1970); Klimate Master, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1981-292.
The principles enunciated in the dealer reserve cases have
been affirmed in other multiparty transactions in which payments
to the taxpayer are withheld or deposited in reserve as security
for the taxpayer's executory obligations. Thus, in Stendig v.
United States, 843 F.2d 163 (4th Cir. 1988), an accrual basis
taxpayer that constructed and operated a low-income apartment
complex financed by the Virginia Housing Development Authority
(VHDA) was required to secure both its loan from VHDA and its
obligations to maintain and operate the complex by depositing a
portion of the rents collected from tenants into reserve accounts
under VHDA's control. The Court of Appeals held that the rule of
Hansen required the taxpayer to include the rent deposits in
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011