Affiliated Foods, Inc., A Corporation - Page 35




                                       - 35 -                                         
              But if the analysis stops there, then respondent may well               
         lose.  If the passed-on rebates are defective patronage dividends            
         because petitioner cannot show that they were calculated with                
         reference to its patronage-based net earnings, then, perhaps,                
         they were not calculated with reference to those earnings.  If               
         not, then it would appear that section 1382(a) imposes no                    
         restriction on petitioner’s reducing its gross receipts from                 
         sales to member stores to reflect what respondent must concede               
         are price adjustments (i.e., trade discounts).10  Nor has                    
         respondent advanced an argument separate from his defective                  
         patronage dividend argument that any provision of subchapter T               
         prevents a subchapter T cooperative from subtracting trade                   




               10  Moreover, in Pittsburgh Milk Co. v. Commissioner, 26               
          T.C. 707 (1956), and cases following that decision, the Tax Court           
          has held that when, as added consideration for a sale, a seller             
          rebates part of a customer’s purchase price or pays that customer           
          cash from a separate account, the amount of the rebate is not a             
          business expense, potentially deductible under sec. 162, but,               
          rather, a reduction of selling price.  Regardless of whether the            
          rebate is legal (viz, whether sec. 162(c) would disallow                    
          deduction of such an illegal rebate by that seller/taxpayer), the           
          seller is treated as if it never received more than the net                 
          selling price (i.e., the stated selling price, less the rebate);            
          the amount of the rebate is excluded from the seller’s gross                
          income.  See generally Max Sobel Wholesale Liquors v.                       
          Commissioner, 630 F.2d 670, 671-672 (9th Cir. 1980), affg. 69               
          T.C. 477 (1977).  In Max Sobel, 630 F.2d at 672, the Court of               
          Appeals for the Ninth Circuit further observed:  “The Pittsburgh            
          Milk doctrine has the obvious merit of reflecting economic                  
          reality.”  The Commissioner has acquiesced to the Tax Court’s               
          holdings in Max Sobel and Pittsburgh Milk.  See 1982-2 C.B. 2, 4;           
          see also Rev. Rul. 82-149, 1982-2 C.B. 56.                                  






Page:  Previous  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007