- 18 -
of commerce held for sale." Simply put, petitioner is not
peddling products.
Respondent looks to the value of the chemotherapy drugs and
asserts that petitioner's business is part service, part sale.
We disagree. The mere fact that the chemotherapy drugs are
expensive is insufficient to transmute the transaction from the
sale of a service to the sale of merchandise and a service. The
common denominator that the items be held for sale is lacking on
these facts. Petitioner's chemotherapy treatment business is a
pure service business and not, as respondent asserts, a mixed
service and merchandising business. See, e.g., Hewlett-Packard
Co. v. United States, 71 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (taxpayer's
computer maintenance business was a service business, not mixed
service and merchandise business, despite installation of parts);
Honeywell, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-453 (taxpayer's
computer maintenance business was a service business, not mixed
service and merchandise business, despite installation of parts),
affd. without published opinion 27 F.3d 571 (8th Cir. 1994).
We find no cases on this issue analogous, much less
controlling. The reported authorities, including those cases
where the court found that the merchandise at issue there was
sold either with or without a service, are all materially
distinguishable from the facts herein given the uniqueness of the
service provided. Respondent relies on the seminal case of
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011