Printer Friendly

Value-added payment receipt not deferral.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Tax Court's decision that when a cooperative makes "value-added" payments to its members and allows them to defer the cash receipts, such payments do not constitute a deferral for tax purposes. In a case argued before the Eighth Circuit, a cooperative had made discretionary yearend, value-added payments based upon its net proceeds, which were determined after its September 30 yearend.

Keith Scherbart, a calendar-year taxpayer, was a corn farmer who belonged to the Minnesota Corn Processor cooperative (MCP), a fiscal-year entity During the calendar year, Scherbart delivered corn three times to MCE which processed the corn and sold it to third parties. MCP paid Scherbart upon delivery In addition, when the fiscal year ended, MCP made value-added payments to its members. Members could elect to receive payment in November of the current year or January of the following year. Scherbart deferred and included the payments in his taxable income for the following year. The IRS disallowed the deferral and assessed a deficiency. The Tax Court (TC Memo 2004-143) held for the IRS.

Result. For the IRS. Scherbart argued that the corn sales qualified as installment sales between him and third parties. He maintained that the transactions were a deferral because MCP required members to select their own payment option. The Tax Court held that MCP was Scherbart's agent; thus the date that MCP received the payments for the corn was the date Scherbart received them.

The circuit court affirmed the Tax Court's decision, holding that the corn sales were not installment sales. MCP's equity disclosure statement did not characterize them as sales, nor did it state that ownership of the corn passed to MCP. Further, because MCP was Scherbart's agent and the deferrals were self-imposed limitations, the value-added payments were taxable to Scherbart when MCP received them. Self-imposed limitations do not change the principal-agent relationship.

This case illustrates the interplay of the principal-agent relationship and the constructive receipt doctrine. Income is taxable when received by the agent, even when the principal has the option of determining when to take possession.

* Keith Scherbart v Commissioner, 453 F3d 987 (CAB).

Uncle Sam Grants Wishes

Since 1998 the IRS has awarded about $7.5 million in matching-fund grants to more than 145 taxpayer clinics that represent low-income taxpayers in disputes with the IRS.

Source: IRS,

Estate Tax Rate Falls

The estate tax rate will fall to 45% for 2007 through 2009, from 46% in 2006.

Source: IRS,

Prepared by Michael H. Brown, CPA, PhD, assistant professor of accounting, Tabor School of Business, Millikin University, Decatur, Ill.
COPYRIGHT 2007 American Institute of CPA's
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2007, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Brown, Michael H.
Publication:Journal of Accountancy
Date:Jan 1, 2007
Previous Article:Denial of contingent liability loss deduction.
Next Article:Offers in compromise are reviewable.

Related Articles
Letter rulings may indicate favorable change in IRS position on advance payments.
Substantiation and disclosure requirements for charitable contributions.
Treasury's long-awaited Subpart F study breaks no new ground, touts ending deferral.
Tax Relief.
When are advance payments includible in income? Proposed revenue procedure clears up ambiguities.
Definition of eligible retirement benefit plan and application of Pennsylvania personal income tax: December 19, 2003.
Taxation of advance payments.
Pay now or defer: no income deferral if services are involved.
Pending Canadian income tax issues: December 7, 2005.
Tax accounting issues for gift certificates and gift cards.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters