Artnell Company v. Commissioner

Last updated
Artnell Company v. Commissioner
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Full case nameArtnell Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
DecidedSeptember 19, 1968
Citation(s)400 F.2d 981; 68-2 USTC (CCH) ¶ 9593
Case history
Prior history48 T.C. 411 (1967)
Subsequent historyOn remand, T.C. Memo. 1970-85
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Roger Kiley, Luther Merritt Swygert, Thomas E. Fairchild
Case opinions
MajorityFairchild, joined by a unanimous court
Laws applied
Internal Revenue Code

Artnell Company v. Commissioner, 400 F.2d 981 (7th Cir. 1968) [1] is a decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in which the court, distinguishing from the holding in Schlude v. Commissioner , [2] held that accrual method taxpayers are not required to include prepayments in gross income when there is certainty as to when performance would occur.

Contents

Facts

The petitioner, an accrual method taxpayer, operated the Chicago White Sox professional baseball franchise using a fiscal year for federal income tax purposes. During the 1962 taxable year, the club sold single and season tickets to games to be played during the 1963 taxable year. The petitioner failed to report income from the sales on its 1962 return and instead reported the receipts as income in 1963.

The petitioner's decision to include income from its ticket sales in 1963, rather than 1962, was part of their practice of reporting income from ticket sales as the corresponding games were played.

The Commissioner argued that, in light of Schlude v. Commissioner , [2] the income should have been reported in the year in which the payment was received, the 1962 taxable year.

Issue

Must the taxpayer include in gross income for 1962 the sale of proceeds received from tickets allocable to games to be played in 1963?

Holding

No. Despite the general rule that requires accrual method taxpayers to include advance payments in the year of receipt, the court carved out a narrow exception for taxpayers such as the petitioners, who are able to prove that services will be performed on fixed dates in one or more subsequent taxable years.

Rationale

Generally, accrual method taxpayers include income in taxable year it is earned, rather than when it is received. However, the Supreme Court trilogy [3] ending with Schlude [2] required inclusion of prepayments in gross income because of the uncertainties as to when, or if, performance would occur. The court distinguished the facts of Artnell from this holding and found that the uncertainties present in previous cases that required the inclusion of advance payments in the year of receipt were not present. The Court found that the deferred income was attributable to games that were intended to be played on a fixed schedule and that notwithstanding rain delays there was certainty about when services would be performed. The court reasoned that there are some situations where deferral will so clearly reflect income, that the IRS abuses its discretion when it refuses to permit deferral.

Related Research Articles

For households and individuals, gross income is the sum of all wages, salaries, profits, interest payments, rents, and other forms of earnings, before any deductions or taxes. It is opposed to net income, defined as the gross income minus taxes and other deductions.

Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income," the starting point for determining which items of income are taxable for federal income tax purposes in the United States. Section 61 states that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived [. .. ]". The United States Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that Congress intended to express its full power to tax incomes to the extent that such taxation is permitted under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States and under the Constitution's Sixteenth Amendment.

For federal income tax purposes, the doctrine of constructive receipt is used to determine when a cash-basis taxpayer has received gross income. A taxpayer is subject to tax in the current year if he or she has unfettered control in determining when items of income will or should be paid. Unlike actual receipt, constructive receipt does not require physical possession of the item of income in question.

<i>Hornung v. Commissioner</i> United States Tax Court case

Hornung v. Commissioner is a case heard by the United States Tax Court in 1967.

In United States income tax law, an installment sale is generally a "disposition of property where at least 1 loan payment is to be received after the close of the taxable year in which the disposition occurs." The term "installment sale" does not include, however, a "dealer disposition" or, generally, a sale of inventory. The installment method of accounting provides an exception to the general principles of income recognition by allowing a taxpayer to defer the inclusion of income of amounts that are to be received from the disposition of certain types of property until payment in cash or cash equivalents is received. The installment method defers the recognition of income when compared with both the cash and accrual methods of accounting. Under the cash method, the taxpayer would recognize the income when it is received, including the entire sum paid in the form of a negotiable note. The deferral advantages of the installment method are the most pronounced when comparing to the accrual method, under which a taxpayer must recognize income as soon as he or she has a right to the income.

<i>Zaninovich v. Commissioner</i> US court case

Zaninovich v. Commissioner, 616 F.2d 429, is a United States court case about the deductibility of advance payments for tax purposes.

The Doctrine of Cash Equivalence states that the U.S. Federal income tax law treats certain non-cash payment transactions like cash payment transactions for federal income tax purposes. The doctrine is used most often for deciding when cash method taxpayers are to include certain non-cash income items. Another doctrine often used when trying to determine the timing of the inclusion of income is the constructive receipt doctrine.

<i>Flamingo Resort, Inc. v. United States</i>

Flamingo Resort, Inc. v. United States, 664 F.2d 1387, was a case decided before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that decided the question of when the right to receive income represented by "markers", or gambling credit lines, become "fixed" for tax purposes based on the "all events" test.

<i>Teschner v. Commissioner</i>

Teschner v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 1003 (1962) was a tax-law case involving the United States IRS in 1962.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Basis of accounting</span> The time when financial transactions are reported

A basis of accounting is the time various financial transactions are recorded. The cash basis and the accrual basis are the two primary methods of tracking income and expenses in accounting.

The all-events test, under U.S. federal income tax law, is the requirement that all the events fixing an accrual-method taxpayer's right to receive income or incur expense must occur before the taxpayer can report an item of income or expense.

<i>Commissioner v. Boylston Market Assn</i>

Commissioner v. Boylston Market Association, 131 F.2d 966 was a taxation case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Installment sales method</span>

The installment sales method is one of several approaches used to recognize revenue under the US GAAP, specifically when revenue and expense are recognized at the time of cash collection rather than at the time of sale. Under the US GAAP, it is the principal method of revenue recognition when the recognition occurs subsequently to the sale.

<i>Gold Coast Hotel & Casino v. United States</i>

Gold Coast Hotel & Casino v. United States, 158 F.3d 484, was a court case that addressed whether a casino, using the accrual method of accounting, could deduct the value of slot club points earned by slot club members in the tax year in which the members accumulated the minimum points required to redeem a prize, or whether the casino had to wait to deduct the value of the slot club points until the members actually redeemed them.

<i>Grynberg v. Commissioner</i>

Grynberg v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 255 (1984) was a case in which the United States Tax Court held that one taxpayer's prepaid business expenses were not ordinary and necessary expenses of the years in which they were made, and therefore the prepayments were not tax deductible. Taxpayers in the United States often seek to maximize their income and decrease their tax liability by prepaying deductible expenses and taking a deduction earlier rather than in a later tax year.

Schlude v. Commissioner, 372 U.S. 128 (1963), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that, under the accrual method, taxpayers must include as income in a particular year advance payments by way of cash, negotiable notes, and contract installments falling due but remaining unpaid during that year. In doing so, the Court tossed aside the matching principle in favor of the earlier-of test.

<i>Warren Jones Co. v. Commissioner</i>

Warren Jones Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 524 F.2d 788 was a taxation decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In the United States, the question whether any compensation plan is qualified or non-qualified is primarily a question of taxation under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Any business prefers to deduct its expenses from its income, which will reduce the income subject to taxation. Expenses which are deductible ("qualified") have satisfied tests required by the IRC. Expenses which do not satisfy those tests ("non-qualified") are not deductible; even though the business has incurred the expense, the amount of that expenditure remains as part of taxable income. In most situations, any business will attempt to satisfy the requirements so that its expenditures are deductible business expenses.

American Automobile Association v. United States, 367 U.S. 687 (1961), was an income tax case before the United States Supreme Court.

<i>Amend v. Commissioner</i> American tax court decision

Amend v. Commissioner, 13 T.C. 178 is a United States Tax Court decision concerning the timing of the realization of gains.

References

  1. Artnell Company v. Commissioner, 400F.2d981 (7th Cir.1968).
  2. 1 2 3 Schlude v. Commissioner , 372 U.S. 128 (1963)
  3. American Automobile Ass'n v. United States , 367 U.S. 687 (1961)

Samuel A. Donaldson, Federal Income Taxation of Individuals 399 (2005).

Text of Artnell Company v. Commissioner, 400 F.2d 981 (7th Cir. 1968) is available from:  CourtListener    Justia    OpenJurist    Google Scholar