- 27 -
deposits. The Supreme Court held that the taxpayer did not have
“complete dominion” over the deposits in question because it did
not have “some guarantee” that it would be allowed to keep them.
Id. According to the Supreme Court, by making timely payments of
their respective utility bills, the customers, and not the
taxpayer, controlled whether the taxpayer would be required to
return the deposits that it received from such customers. Id. at
209. In contrast to the situation presented in Indianapolis
Power & Light Co., Super Rite did not have control over the
events that petitioner asserts would have constituted a material
breach by it of the April 16, 1999 supply agreement and that
would have required petitioner to repay a portion or all of the
$1.5 million at issue that it received from Super Rite.20 See
20According to petitioner, it would have materially breached
the April 16, 1999 supply agreement upon the occurrence of any of
the following events set forth in paragraph 5 of that supply
agreement:
(i) upon the failure by the Retailer to make payment to
Super Rite in accordance with Section 2 hereof for
goods delivered hereunder; (ii) immediately upon the
filing of a petition for relief by the Retailer in a
voluntary proceeding under applicable federal or state
bankruptcy law or like laws for the protection of
debtors or upon the application of the Retailer to any
court or administrative agency of competent jurisdic-
tion for the appointment of a receiver or trustee for
the administration of the Retailer’s affairs;
(iii) upon the filing of a petition for relief with
respect to the Retailer in an involuntary proceeding
under applicable federal or state bankruptcy law or
like laws for the protection of debtors or upon the
application by a third party to any court or adminis-
(continued...)
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