Rameau A. and Phyllis A. Johnson - Page 32

                                               - 32 -                                                 

            to the Dealerships until applied to future purchases of repairs                           
            or released to the Dealerships without restriction upon                                   
            expiration of the contract.                                                               
                  In Indianapolis Power & Light the issue was whether an                              
            accrual method public utility was required to include in gross                            
            income upon receipt the amount of refundable security deposits                            
            that it required from customers with suspect credit.  The amount                          
            of the deposit was twice the customer's estimated monthly utility                         
            bill.  A customer could obtain a full refund of his deposit by                            
            demonstrating acceptable credit or by making timely payments over                         
            a specified period.  The customer could choose to receive the                             
            refund in cash or have it applied against future bills.  The                              
            Court held that the customer deposits were not advance payments                           
            for electricity and therefore not taxable upon receipt.  "The                             
            key", said the Court, "is whether the taxpayer has some guarantee                         
            that he will be allowed to keep the money."  Id. at 210.  In the                          
            case of a nonrefundable advance payment, exemplified by the fees                          
            for dancing lessons at issue in Schlude v. Commissioner, 372 U.S.                         
            128 (1963), and subscription fees in American Auto. Association                           
            v. United States, 367 U.S. 687 (1961),                                                    
                  the seller is assured that, so long as it fulfills its                              
                  contractual obligation, the money is its to keep.                                   
                  Here, in contrast, a customer submitting a deposit made                             
                  no commitment to purchase a specified quantity of                                   
                  electricity, or indeed to purchase any electricity at                               
                  all.  IPL's right to keep the money depends upon the                                
                  customer's purchase of electricity, and upon his later                              
                  decision to have the deposit applied to future bills,                               




Page:  Previous  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011