- 19 -
Nevertheless, petitioner claims that it is free to so argue since
the facts controlling the issue here are different from those in
Affiliated Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-505. In
that case, we found facts that, in much the same terms we use
today, describe food shows petitioner put on during its 1989 and
1990 taxable years (1989 and 1990, respectively). We described
show money (although we did not use that term) much as we
describe it today, although we included no specific description
of off-invoice discounts. We described the order forms (deal
data sheets) submitted by vendors and said “there was no
negotiating” after the order forms were submitted. We described
the procedures for supplying petitioner-delivered currency much
as we describe them today. We also said:
In both instances [i.e., in the case of both
promotional-allowance currency and vendor-check
currency], petitioner required the vendors to sign for
the cash received, and, most importantly, it also
required any unused cash to be returned to it at the
end of the food show. This was not a check-cashing
service. Unlike a check-cashing service, petitioner
ensured that the check proceeds were either paid to its
shareholders or returned to it. [Emphasis added.]
We ended our discussion of petitioner-delivered currency by
concluding:
Petitioner was not a nontaxable intermediary with
respect to the food show cash disbursements arising
from the promotional accounts. * * * Similarly, as
for the food show cash disbursements arising from the
check-cashing transactions, petitioner exercised
dominion and control over these funds, as evidenced by
the return of any “unused” cash. Thus, these amounts
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007