Consolidated Manufacturing, Inc., M. P. Long Living Trust, Merl Philip Long, Trustee, Tax Matters Person - Page 67

                                        -67-                                          
          position as to what are the cost and the market for Conso-                  
          lidated's customer cores for purposes of section 471 would not              
          change.                                                                     
               Purchase vs. Exchange Transactions                                     
               In support of petitioner's position that Consolidated                  
          acquired customer cores in exchange transactions, petitioner                
          asserts:                                                                    
                    Petitioner's method of obtaining cores from its                   
               customers is, at its root, an exchange of a remanu-                    
               factured automobile part for a sum of money (the                       
               exchange amount) plus the customer's core. * * *                       
               Respondent's attempt to characterize the core                          
               deposit[26] as the "cost" to Petitioner of a core                      
               provided to it by a customer is apparently founded in                  
               Treasury Regulation 1.471-3(b) and assumes that the                    
               core deposit is the "invoice price" of the core.                       
               Respondent's position ignores both the absence of an                   
               "invoice" or "invoice price" relating to a customer                    
               core and the fundamental nature of the transaction                     
               between Petitioner and its customer.                                   
                    Petitioner's customers do not issue invoices to                   
               Petitioner.  On the sale of a remanufactured automobile                
               part, Petitioner issues an invoice to its customer that                
               reflects an exchange amount and a core deposit. * * *                  
               The core deposit is reflected on the invoice with the                  
               understanding that the customer can return his or her                  
               core and receive back from Petitioner the full amount                  
               of the core deposit shown. * * * The recording of the                  
               core deposit on Petitioner's invoice is, therefore,                    
               simply the posting of a customer deposit to secure the                 
               return of the customer's core.  Further, the refunding                 
               of the core deposit and the issuance of a credit                       
               invoice by Petitioner to a customer simply documents                   


               26  Petitioner uses the term "core deposit" on brief                   
          presumably because it contends that the core amount for a                   
          customer core represents a deposit made by Consolidated's                   
          customer to secure "the return of the customer's core", which was           
          to be refunded at the time that customer decided to deliver a               
          customer core to Consolidated.                                              




Page:  Previous  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011