- 26 -
We turn now to petitioner’s reliance on the statement in
Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 493 U.S. 203, 210
(1990), that “In determining whether a taxpayer enjoys ‘complete
dominion’ over a given sum, * * * The key is whether the taxpayer
has some guarantee that he will be allowed to keep the money.”
According to petitioner,
There was no guarantee in April of 1999 that the
Petitioner would meet the purchase obligations or other
obligations under the Supply and Requirements Agree-
ments for the ensuing six years. Accordingly, there
was no guarantee that future debt service payments
would be forgiven. * * *
* * * * * * *
Even if one assumes that on the anniversary date
the Petitioner had met the purchase requirements under
the Supply and Requirements Agreement, there was still
no guarantee that the debt service payment would be
forgiven because the Note required “that the borrower
is in compliance with, and shall not have materially
breached or then be an uncured default, under the
Supply Agreement” * * *.
Petitioner’s contentions in reliance on Commissioner v.
Indianapolis Power & Light Co., supra, miss the point that the
Supreme Court established in that case. The issue presented in
Indianapolis Power & Light Co. was whether certain deposits that
the taxpayer, a power company, received from its customers were
income. In resolving that issue, the Supreme Court analyzed
whether the taxpayer enjoyed “complete dominion” over such
19(...continued)
Commissioner, 88 T.C. 604, 616 (1987), affd. without published
opinion 855 F.2d 855 (8th Cir. 1988).
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011