Krim-Ko Corp. v. Commissioner

16 T.C. 31, 1951 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 317
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJanuary 11, 1951
DocketDocket No. 20394
StatusPublished
Cited by70 cases

This text of 16 T.C. 31 (Krim-Ko Corp. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Krim-Ko Corp. v. Commissioner, 16 T.C. 31, 1951 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 317 (tax 1951).

Opinion

OPINION.

Raum, Judge:

1. Respondent disallowed deductions in the amounts of $4,400 for 1942 and $3,000 for 1944 taken by Krim-Ko as additions to its reserve for bad debts. Ordinarily, deductions based upon reserves are not allowed under the revenue laws (cf. Brown v. Helvering, 291 U. S. 193), and this was true originally as to bad debts. Section 23(h)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code represents an exception to the general rule; it allows as a deduction “(in the discretion of the Commissioner) a reasonable addition to a reserve for bad debts * * 1 However, Congress was unwilling to give the taxpayer an absolute right to such deduction and explicitly made it contingent upon the Commissioner’s discretion. The question for decision here is whether there has been an abuse of that discretion. As was stated in C. P. Ford & Co., 28 B. T. A. 156, 158-159:

A taxpayer has an absolute right to choose to deduct his worthless debts when they are ascertained to be worthless and charged off, but if instead he chooses to deduct additions to a reserve, he subjects himself to the reasonable discretion of the Commissioner. Reserves of any sort are not ordinarily deductible, * * * and when Congress so far departs from the customary practice as to permit such a deduction as to a bad debt reserve, the condition is as important as the permission. Such a deduction presents substantial problems of administration, and it can not be assumed that Congress intended either that the taxpayer’s unrestrained judgment as to the propriety or wisdom of his method or that the Board’s judgment in a particular case when not supported by broad administrative considerations as well as the taxpayer’s individual premises should override the Commissioner’s sound discretion. * * *

See also Walter H. Goodrich & Co., 40 B. T. A. 960, 961-962.

Petitioner stresses the fact that the effect of the Commissioner’s disallowance of the addition to the reserve for 1942 and 1944 is to permit for the 3 years, 1942-1944, inclusive, an addition to the reserve of only $343.23, the amount by which the reserve was increased in 1943. It suggests that such amount is wholly insufficient, based upon its experience. But the crux of the matter is not whether the additions to the reserve are sufficient to absorb the bad debts that might arise during the years involved. Rather, the question is whether the reserve itself was sufficient for that purpose. And if the Commissioner was justified in concluding, in the light of prevailing conditions, that the reserve already on the taxpayer’s books was adequate, we cannot overturn his exercise of discretion to disallow further additions to the reserve.

The evidence does not convince us that respondent’s action in disallowing the contested deductions was either arbitrary or an abuse of the discretion vested in him by Congress. At the beginning of the year 1941, the balance in Krim-Ko’s reserve for bad debts was $12,480.03. Its actual bad debts charged to the reserve during that year exceeded recoveries by $6,072.77, and $7,566.45 was added to the reserve. The balance in the reserve at the end of 1941 was $13,973.71. In 1942, although its sales increased by approximately $100,000 over 1941, there was a decrease in its accounts receivable of approximately $30,000 and a decrease in the amount of its actual bad debts over recoveries of $876.30 ($6,072.77 minus $5,196.47). Respondent’s dis-allowance of any addition to Krim-Ko’s reserve at the end of 1942 left it with a reserve of $8,777.24. This amount is some $2,700 in excess of the net charges to the reserve in 1941 and some $3,500 in excess of the net charges made thereto in 1942. This fact, and the absence of any evidence to indicate that Krim-Ko could reasonably anticipate a substantial increase in the amount of bad debts during the year 1943, seems to us to sustain respondent’s determination that Krim-Ko was not entitled to any increase in the amount of its reserve for bad debts at the end of 1942.

The justification for respondent’s disallowance of the $3,000 addition to Krim-Ko’s reserve at the end of the year 1944 is even more clearly apparent. Without any addition, the reserve at that time was $6,607-98, whereas net charges to the reserve amounted to only $1,934.41 in 1944 and $578.08 in 1943. The war years which brought Krim-Ko increased sales also brought a sharp decline in bad debts. These were facts which the Commissioner was certainly entitled to take into account, and, in the circumstances, he did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the reserve as it then stood did not require augmentation at that time.

2. The remaining issue relates to the correctness of the respondent’s determination that amounts reflected in credit balances in the adver-, tising accounts, carried on the books of Krim-Ko in the names of its customers at the end of the years 1942, 1943, and 1944, should have been included in the taxable income of Krim-Ko for those years. Apart from the year 1942, which will be discussed separately, the Commissioner treated as income of Krim-Ko the net amounts by which the credit balances were increased in each of the taxable years. For each year that amount was the excess of credits to the accounts over charges against them. Thus, the amount in controversy for the year 1943 is $13,072.65, which is equal to the excess of $30,963.07 in credits over $17,890.42 in charges made during that year. Stated otherwise, although Krim-Ko received $30,963.07 from its customers during 1943 for advertising material and services, it expended at most only $17,890.422 for that purpose, and the Commissioner contends that the difference, $13,072.65, constitutes income to Krim-Ko.

Petitioner, on the other hand, argnes that the advertising account was a trust fund, “a fund belonging to [Krim-Ko’s] customers”; that Krim-Ko itself “acted only as a conduit through which payment for advertising and promotional services was made”; and that none of the payments made by its customers for advertising could be included in the gross income. We disagree. The receipts on account of the so-called advertising charges did not constitute a trust fund for customers, nor were they set aside in any other way as the property of the customers.

Petitioner’s contentions find no support in the provisions of the agreements between Krim-Ko and its customers which were introduced in evidence. Therein Krim-Ko agreed to furnish certain designated advertising material and sales promotion services and its customers agreed to pay therefor a price per gallon for a specified number of gallons of syrup in excess of the base price charged in instances where such material and services were not furnished. The agreements placed no restriction upon Krim-Ko’s use or disposition of any amounts received by it for advertising material and services and did not indicate that it was to act as a depository, conduit, trustee, or agent with respect to them.

At most, Krim-Ko, as an adjunct to its principal business, had undertaken to sell special advertising material and services to its customers. The amounts which it received for that purpose must be reflected in gross income, which may be reduced by the amount of expenditures which it made in connection therewith.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Suresh Anisetti v. Commissioner
2020 T.C. Summary Opinion 3 (U.S. Tax Court, 2020)
Hamlett v. Comm'r
2004 T.C. Memo. 78 (U.S. Tax Court, 2004)
Affiliated Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner
154 F.3d 527 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
AFFILIATED FOODS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER
1996 T.C. Memo. 505 (U.S. Tax Court, 1996)
Krakowski v. Commissioner
1993 T.C. Memo. 266 (U.S. Tax Court, 1993)
Continental Illinois Corp. v. Commissioner
1989 T.C. Memo. 636 (U.S. Tax Court, 1989)
Beneficial Corp. v. United States
9 Cl. Ct. 119 (Court of Claims, 1985)
Thompson v. Commissioner
761 F.2d 259 (Sixth Circuit, 1985)
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
761 F.2d 259 (Sixth Circuit, 1985)
Hendrix v. Commissioner
1983 T.C. Memo. 704 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)
Willard v. Commissioner
1983 T.C. Memo. 656 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)
Thompson v. Commissioner
1983 T.C. Memo. 81 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)
Nordberg v. Commissioner
79 T.C. No. 41 (U.S. Tax Court, 1982)
Schochet v. Commissioner
1982 T.C. Memo. 416 (U.S. Tax Court, 1982)
Gurentz v. Commissioner
1978 T.C. Memo. 238 (U.S. Tax Court, 1978)
Mills & Lupton Supply Co. v. Commissioner
1977 T.C. Memo. 294 (U.S. Tax Court, 1977)
Roth Steel Tube Co. v. Commissioner
68 T.C. 213 (U.S. Tax Court, 1977)
Florists' Transworld Delivery Ass'n v. Commissioner
67 T.C. 333 (U.S. Tax Court, 1976)
Zions First Nat'l Bank v. Commissioner
1974 T.C. Memo. 210 (U.S. Tax Court, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 T.C. 31, 1951 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krim-ko-corp-v-commissioner-tax-1951.