- 20 -
must also be included in petitioner’s income. * * *
[Emphasis added.]
Petitioner argues that the important facts we relied on in
Affiliated Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, to support our
conclusion that it exercised dominion and control over the
petitioner-delivered currency are not present in this case.
Petitioner claims that, unlike what we found for 1989 and 1990,
during the audit years, (1) it did not require vendors to return
to it any remaining petitioner-delivered currency not paid to
member stores, and (2) although it had the final say, it did
negotiate with vendors the amounts of show money the vendor would
give. It also claims that, with respect to its 1993 food shows,
vendors gave it no checks. While we are not certain about
petitioner’s third claim, we have made findings consistent with
its first two claims. With respect to its first claim, we have
found: “At the conclusion of the food show, vendors who had
received bank bags from petitioner returned to petitioner those
bags and any currency they wanted to deliver to petitioner.” See
supra p. 11 (emphasis added). Our finding is almost a verbatim
recitation of a stipulated fact. From that stipulation, we draw
the inference that vendors had discretion to, but were not
required to, return to petitioner at the end of a food show any
undistributed petitioner-delivered currency, and we so find.
Whatever limited power vendors had to negotiate food show
money and, more importantly, their right to retain any
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007