- 28 -
constitute taxable income to a taxpayer there must be (1) the
presence of a claim * * * [of] right to such receipts, and (2)
the absence of a definite, unconditional obligation to pay the
same to another.’” United States v. Miss. Chem. Co., 326 F.2d
569, 573 (5th Cir. 1964) (quoting Farmers Coop. Co. v.
Birmingham, 86 F. Supp. 201, 214 (N.D. Iowa 1949) (citing
Commissioner v. Wilcox, 327 U.S. 404 (1946))).
Petitioner-delivered currency came into petitioner’s hands
on the understanding that petitioner would in short order deliver
the currency to the vendors whose promotional allowance accounts
had been debited, or whose checks had been cashed, to provide the
currency. Petitioner lacked meaningful control over petitioner-
delivered currency, and neither its receipt of checks from
vendors, its withdrawal of currency from the bank, nor its
delivery of that currency to vendors can, alone or together,
serve as the basis for charging petitioner with having received
rebates from vendors. With respect to this narrow aspect of the
show money operation, petitioner merely served as a conduit,
providing the vendors with liquidity from their own funds. We do
not see that petitioner effectively exercised any more control
over petitioner-delivered currency than it did over vendor-
provided currency.
We end our discussion of control inconclusively because, so
far as we understand respondent’s control argument, it is
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007