Consolidated Manufacturing, Inc., M. P. Long Living Trust, Merl Philip Long, Trustee, Tax Matters Person - Page 83

                                        -83-                                          
               The basis of property required to be included in                       
               inventory is the last inventory value of such property                 
               in the hands of the taxpayer.  The requirements with                   
               respect to the valuation of an inventory are stated in                 
               subpart D (sections 471 and following), part II,                       
               subchapter E, chapter 1 of the Code, and the                           
               regulations thereunder.                                                
               We also reject petitioner's position that the aggregate                
          amount of the alleged excesses of the core credit amounts over              
          the alleged fair market values of Consolidated's customer cores             
          is deductible under section 162.  In support of that position,              
          petitioner asserts:                                                         
                    Even if one regards the refund of the core deposit as             
               "payment" for the core, an artificially or unnecessarily               
               high payment does not change the "cost" of property under              
               the Code.  Rather, when a taxpayer pays more than the fair             
               market value for the purchase of an asset and the excess               
               payment is for a purpose other than the acquisition of the             
               property or the transaction is based upon peculiar                     
               circumstances which influence the purchaser to pay more than           
               fair market value, the excess amount is excluded from the              
               "cost" of the property.  Jordan v. Commissioner, 60 T.C.               
               872, 879 (1973), aff'd 514 F.2d 1209 (8th Cir. 1975);                  
               Majestic Securities Corp. v. Commissioner, 120 F.2d 12, 14-            
               15 (8th Cir. 1941), affirming 42 B.T.A. 698 (1940); New                
               Hampshire Fire Insurance Co. v. Commissioner, 2 T.C. 708,              
               724 (1943), aff'd, 146 F.2d 697 (1st Cir. 1945).  Instead,             
               under such circumstances, cost is determined with reference            
               to the fair market value of the property received.  Lemmen             
               v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1326, 1348 (1981), acq. 1983-1 C.B.           
               1.                                                                     
                    As illustrated above, Respondent cannot reasonably                
               dispute that the core deposit for any particular                       
               remanufactured automobile part is greatly in excess of the             
               fair market value of the core.  In Burrell, the Tenth                  
               Circuit found that the core deposit was purposely set higher           
               that [sic] the value of the core "in order to induce the               
               customers to return the old cores and to enable Burrell to             
               maintain a needed supply of cores."  Burrell, 400 F.2d at              
               683.  The same is true in the present case.                            






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