- 17 -
times each year, and (4) sold corn and corn products for profit
through MCP.
Under the UMAs, once petitioners satisfied their production
obligations by supplying corn they had either grown or acquired
from the option pool to MCP, MCP processed the corn and then
marketed and sold the corn and resulting products on behalf of
petitioners and its other members. In fact, the UMAs
specifically appointed MCP as petitioners’ agents to market and
sell the corn and corn products.
Respondent argues that petitioners’ involvement with MCP is
more than sufficient to qualify as a trade or business.
Moreover, respondent contends that MCP’s actions in processing,
marketing, and selling corn on behalf of its members can be
attributed to petitioners for purposes of this analysis because
the UMAs expressly designated MCP as petitioners’ agent to market
and sell the corn and corn products and because the contractual
designation is controlling.
Petitioners disagree, arguing their involvement with MCP was
so limited that it cannot qualify as a trade or business and that
MCP’s actions in processing, marketing, and selling the corn and
corn products cannot be attributed to them. Specifically,
petitioners contend that whether MCP was petitioners’ agent is
not controlled by the UMAs but must be decided by reference to
State law. According to petitioners, the law of agency in
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011