-79- record in the present case. For example, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit stated that the item two charge "was purposely made higher than the value of the old core to be returned, in order to induce customers to return old cores and to enable Burrell to maintain a needed inventory of old cores." Id. at 683. It is not clear what the Court of Appeals meant by the term "value". In any event, in the instant case, we have found on the record presented to us that Consolidated determined the price that it was willing to pay to acquire customer cores on the basis of market-related factors, including supply and demand, and that it did not pay more to acquire customer cores than the marketplace in which it acquired those cores demanded. The Court in Burrell v. Commissioner, supra at 683, also indicated that the taxpayers' books reflected an account called "Customer Core Deposits" which "reflected the amounts of Item Two charges which customers would have to pay in cash if they failed to discharge them by the return of an old core." In the present case, we have found that at the time of each sale of a remanufactured auto- mobile part the core amount, which was part of the remanufactured automobile part sales price for each such sale, was reflected in Consolidated's books as an entry increasing "sales (core amount)" and as part of an entry (i.e., the remanufactured automobile part sales price) increasing "customer account receivable"; the core amount was not shown in those books as a deposit.Page: Previous 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011