Karns Prime & Fancy Food, Ltd. - Page 27

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011