Herbert C. Haynes, Inc. - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
          we believe petitioner bought wood in its other business                     
          activities as well.  Petitioner’s activities related to cutting             
          wood on land owned by unrelated entities, under the numerous                
          business activities such as the fixed price arrangements and                
          pay-as-cut arrangements, are also forms of purchasing wood                  
          products for resale.  Petitioner “bought” the timber (standing              
          trees) on the unrelated entity’s land, supervised cutting of the            
          timber, removed the logs using its own equipment and trucks, and            
          delivered the logs to the mills.                                            
                         2.   Merchandise                                             
               The logs and other wood products are merchandise to                    
          petitioner.  Although not specifically defined in the Internal              
          Revenue Code or the regulations, courts have ruled that                     
          “merchandise”, as used in section 1.471-1, Income Tax Regs., is             
          an item acquired and held for sale.  See, e.g., Wilkinson-Beane,            
          Inc. v. Commissioner, supra.  Whether an item was acquired and              
          held for sale is governed by the substance of the transaction               
          and not its form.  Honeywell, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra.                  
          Thus, to determine whether an item is “merchandise”, we must                
          take into account the particular facts and circumstances of the             
          taxpayer in each case and the manner and context in which the               
          taxpayer operates the business at hand.  Wilkinson-Beane, Inc.              
          v. Commissioner, supra; Thompson Elec., Inc. v. Commissioner,               
          T.C. Memo. 1995-292; Honeywell, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra;                






Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011