- 17 -
after the close of the 1996 taxable year, the period reserved to
Pepsi for making payment of the marketing funds for the second
half of 1996, the theater company would have been forced to
forfeit the marketing funds for the last half of 1996 and to
repay the marketing funds for the first half of 1996.
Petitioners therefore contend that the theater company's right to
the marketing funds remained contingent even after the close of
the taxable year. Petitioners base their contention on the
provision in the agreement labeled “Marketing Fund”:
Should the Customer fail to comply with any of the
Performance Requirements during the Term, the Customer
agrees that in addition to the forfeiture of any
funding for the second 6-month period, the Customer
shall immediately repay to Pepsi-Cola all of the funds
paid to the Customer, by Pepsi-Cola, for the first 6-
month period of that Year. [Emphasis added.]
As previously stated, however, we do not look to conditions
subsequent in applying the all events test. See Keith v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. at 617. We therefore sustain respondent's
determination that the marketing funds paid in 1997 should have
been accrued in 1996.
To the extent not herein discussed, we have considered the
parties' other arguments but found them to be moot, irrelevant,
or unconvincing.
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