- 14 - into refundable deposits or preclude their accrual as income. Pursuant to Arizona's parol evidence rule and Mr. Goodson's testimony, we accept petitioners' argument that Pepsi generally conducted an investigation during the 60-day period following the end of each calendar year. This part of Mr. Goodson's testimony is consistent with the agreement in which Pepsi had 60 days to pay the marketing funds following the end of each 6-month period.7 We, however, reject petitioners' contention that the theater company's right to the funds was dependent on Pepsi's approving the funds, for it would require us to read a provision into the agreement. The agreement simply states that the flex and marketing funds were “contingent upon the Customer's complying with * * * the * * * performance criteria”. Because the theater company had a guaranty of retaining the flex and marketing funds as long as it performed under the agreement, we do not consider the flex and marketing funds paid in 1996 to be refundable deposits as suggested by petitioners.8 7 The agreement did not explicitly provide that Pepsi had 60 days at the end of each 6-month period to pay the flex funds. 8 As to respondent's argument that the flex funds paid in 1996 for the first half of that year constituted advance receipts, we note that the agreement provided that flex funds were “earned” when paid; that provision could lead to the conclusion that at the time the flex funds were received in 1996, they were receipts on account of actual rather than expected performance. See infra note 9 for our interpretation of the word (continued...)Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011