- 30 -
and uses them to discharge its personal indebtedness, it has
plainly "received" them for purposes of the all events test.
This result is consistent with the case law on the taxation
of dealer reserve accounts. As noted above, it is well
established that a taxpayer that sells a consumer installment
contract for a price that includes interest payable over the term
of the contract acquires a fixed right to receive the amount of
the purchase price attributable to the interest at the time it is
credited to the taxpayer's reserve account, even though the
reserve account will be charged to the extent of any interest
that is abated before it is earned as a result of the consumer's
decision to prepay the balance and terminate the contract
prematurely. Resale Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Commissioner, 965 F.2d
at 823; Shapiro v. Commissioner, 295 F.2d at 307; General Gas
Corp. v. Commissioner, 293 F.2d at 39-41; Federated Dept. Stores,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 51 T.C. at 502-503. We do not perceive any
difference in substance between forfeiture under those conditions
and forfeiture through the cancellation refund provisions of the
VSC. In both situations the forfeiture constitutes an
application of the funds to discharge the taxpayer's obligations,
which unquestionably inures to the taxpayer's benefit; in neither
situation does the existence of the contingent liability prevent
the taxpayer from acquiring a fixed right to receive the amounts
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011