Consolidated Manufacturing, Inc., M. P. Long Living Trust, Merl Philip Long, Trustee, Tax Matters Person - Page 73

                                        -73-                                          
          fair market value of the new trucks that its subsidiary acquired            
          from those companies.  Id.  In negotiating the foregoing                    
          transactions with G.M.C. and White, Charles E. Mendez (Mendez),             
          the president and chairman of the board of both the taxpayer and            
          its subsidiary, did not indicate to either G.M.C. or White which            
          corporation he was representing, and it made no difference to               
          G.M.C. or White whether they were dealing with the taxpayer or              
          with its subsidiary.  Id.  Both the taxpayer and its subsidiary             
          used the same address on the checks utilized in the transactions            
          in question even though they were located in different cities in            
          Florida and even though the taxpayer's subsidiary used a                    
          different bank account for all of its business activities.  Id.             
          G.M.C. and White delivered most of the trucks acquired in the               
          alleged purchases by the taxpayer's subsidiary directly to the              
          taxpayer even though they were ostensibly being sold to that                
          subsidiary for resale to the taxpayer.  Id.                                 
               In addition to reciting the foregoing facts in Redwing                 
          Carriers, Inc. v. Tomlinson, supra, the Court of Appeals for the            
          Fifth Circuit observed that "a definite contractual inter-                  
          dependency between the sale of new trucks and the trade-in of old           
          trucks" existed, id., in that there "would have been no purchase            
          by * * * [the taxpayer's subsidiary] of new trucks or tractors              
          without concurrent and binding agreements to purchase * * * [the            
          taxpayer's] used equipment", id. (quoting the U.S. District                 
          Court's opinion in Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Tomlinson, 19 AFTR             




Page:  Previous  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011