Load, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

559 F.3d 909, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7017
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 4, 2009
Docket07-72564
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 559 F.3d 909 (Load, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Load, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 559 F.3d 909, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7017 (9th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

ORDER

The Opinion filed February 2, 2009 and appearing at 554 F.3d 785, 2009 WL 225332 (C.A.9) is amended as follows:

1. Following the first sentence in the third full paragraph, insert the sentence “The Tax Court opinion is attached as an appendix.”

2. The Tax Court opinion, LOAD, Inc. v. Comm’r, 93 T.C.M. (CCH) 969, 2007 WL 675950 (2007), in its entirety, is attached to this opinion as an appendix.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellants LOAD, Inc. and COAD, Inc. 1 challenge the Tax Court’s determination of *911 a federal income tax deficiency for the tax year ending September 30, 2000. The Tax Court held that certain of ADI’s expenses were not deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses under 26 U.S.C. § 162(a) and must be capitalized as inventory costs under 26 U.S.C. § 263A.

We review the Tax Court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Kelley v. Comm’r, 45 F.3d 348, 350 (9th Cir.1995). Our exclusive jurisdiction to review a final decision of the Tax Court arises under 26 U.S.C. § 7482.

The Tax Court wrote an extensive opinion on this matter. See LOAD, Inc. v. Comm’r, 93 T.C.M. (CCH) 969, 2007 WL 675950 (2007). The Tax Court opinion is attached as an appendix. We approve and adopt that opinion as governing this case.

Accordingly, we affirm.

APPENDIX

T.C. Memo.2007-51, 2007 WL 675950 (U.S.Tax Ct.), 93 T.C.M. (CCH) 969, T.C.M. (RIA) 2007-051, 2007 WL 675950 RIATC Memo 2007-051

United States Tax Court.

LOAD, Inc., Petitioner

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

Nos. 7287-02, 7294-02.

March 6, 2007.

Background: Taxpayers, sister companies engaged in buying and selling manufactured homes, petitioned for rede-termination of deficiencies arising from disallowance of business expense deductions.

Holdings: The Tax Court, Swift, J., held that:

(1) costs associated with placing model homes on retail sales lots were outside “on-site storage facility” exception to inventory rule, and

(2) same costs were also outside “marketing, selling, advertising, and distribution” exception to inventory rule.

Decision for IRS.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

SWIFT, Judge.

*1 Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners’ Federal income taxes for their separate taxable years ending September 30, 2000, as follows:

Petitioner Deficiency

LOAD, Inc. $16,589

COAD, Inc. $23,954

Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.

The issue for decision is whether certain costs relating to manufactured homes that petitioners owned and placed on retail sales lots in order to assist local independent salespersons in the sale of manufactured homes may be currently deducted under section 162 as ordinary and necessary business expenses or whether they should be included under section 263A in petitioners’ inventory costs relating to the manufactured homes.

Petitioners and 18 other related corporations are either subsidiaries of, or sister corporations to, Associated Dealers, Inc. (ADI), a Nevada corporation.

ADI and 12 of ADI’s related corporations also have filed petitions with the Court relating to the same expense versus inventory issue that is involved herein, 1 *912 and respondent, ADI, and the other related petitioners have agreed to be bound by the final outcome of this issue in these two consolidated cases.

Hereinafter, we generally use the acronym ADI indiscriminately to refer to petitioners, to ADI, and to the ADI-related corporations.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

At the time the petitions were filed, both petitioners’ principal places of business were located in Reno, Nevada.

ADI and its related corporations buy and sell manufactured homes in the same manner.

Manufactured homes are constructed at a factory location and are then transported directly to homesites of retail purchasers.

ADI has been selling manufactured homes for more than 30 years, and ADI has become the largest seller of manufactured homes in Arizona and one of the largest sellers of manufactured homes in the Southwestern United States. In recent years, ADI has expanded its sales of manufactured homes to 192 locations in 22 states.

From the 1970s through the late 1990s, ADI purchased completed manufactured homes from unrelated manufacturers and sold the manufactured homes directly to retail customers using individual salespersons who worked for ADI as employees.

In the late 1990s, however, as a result of a significant decline in business and excessive costs such as employee wages and commissions, a number of manufacturers of manufactured homes closed factories, and many sellers of manufactured homes went out of business.

To adjust to the changing market conditions and to reduce costs, in approximately 1999 ADI adopted a revised business plan and restructured its sales operation. Under ADI’s revised business plan, ADI’s salespersons are given a more active role in .the sales activities and act as independent contractors vis-a-vis ADI. 2

*2 Under the agreements ADI enters into with the independent salespersons, ADI purchases from manufacturers a number of model manufactured homes and places the model manufactured homes on retail sales lots that ADI leases for the purpose of displaying the manufactured homes to the public and to potential retail customers.

The retail sales lots that ADI leases generally are located in prominent, high traffic areas-either the same sales lots ADI had leased and used in prior years or new sales lots. These lots are not leased by ADI as storage lots, but rather the lots are leased by ADI as sales lots for the sale of manufactured homes.

ADI places the model manufactured homes on the sales lots to attract public attention, to provide an opportunity for interested retail customers to inspect the types of manufactured homes that are available for purchase, and in order that the independent salespersons have manufactured homes on the sales lots to show to customers.

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

Related

City Line Candy & Tobacco Corp. v. Commissioner
141 T.C. No. 13 (U.S. Tax Court, 2013)
Ronald Talmage v. Cir
Ninth Circuit, 2010
Talmage v. Commissioner
391 F. App'x 660 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
559 F.3d 909, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/load-inc-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca9-2009.