- 10 - merchandise and a service. See Osteopathic Med. Oncology & Hematology, P.C. v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 376, 386 (1999). We distinguish between materials held for sale and materials that are consumed by the taxpayer in performing a service. See RACMP Enters., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 224. In RACMP Enters., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, we were presented with the question whether the raw materials (concrete mix, sand, and drain rock) that a concrete contractor used in completing contracts for the construction of foundations, driveways, and walkways constituted merchandise within the meaning of section 1.471-1, Income Tax Regs. Relying on Osteopathic Med. Oncology & Hematology, P.C., v. Commissioner, supra, we concluded that construction materials generally will not be considered merchandise within the meaning of the regulation if the inherent nature of the taxpayer’s business is that of a service provider and the materials are an indispensable and inseparable part of the rendering of the services. See RACMP Enters., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 222. In RACMP Enters., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, we initially concluded that the taxpayer/concrete contractor was a service provider. See id. In reaching that conclusion, we noted that construction contracts involve primarily the furnishing of labor and contractual skills, and in the context of that case, thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011