Farmland Industries, Inc. - Page 81




                                       - 76 -                                         
             the year, the taxpayer received dividends from the glue                  
             manufacturer which it included in its net earnings as                    
             patronage income.  See id.  In holding that the dividends                
             were patronage income, the court stated:                                 

                  Glue is essential to the manufacture of ply-                        
                  wood, and the arrangement which [the taxpayer-                      
                  cooperative] made to produce its glue through a                     
                  supplier which it and another plywood workers'                      
                  cooperative organized is reasonably related to                      
                  the business done with or for its patrons.                          
                  [Id.]                                                               

             Cf. Rev. Rul. 74-160, supra (interest paid on loans made                 
             by taxpayer cooperative to its chief supplier held to be                 
             patronage income).                                                       
                  Similarly, in Land O'Lakes, Inc. v. United States,                  
             675 F.2d 988 (8th Cir. 1981), the court considered the                   
             patronage classification of dividends received by the                    
             taxpayer, a nonexempt cooperative, with respect to its                   
             stock in a bank for cooperatives.  The court noted that                  
             the taxpayer was required to acquire and hold the stock to               
             obtain a loan, the proceeds of which were used to finance                
             cooperative activities on favorable terms.  See id. at 993.              
             The court found that the subject transaction in which the                
             taxpayer received the dividends was not “significantly                   
             distinguishable” from the transactions involved in Rev.                  
             Rul. 69-576, supra, and Rev. Rul. 74-160, supra, and held                






Page:  Previous  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011