Paccar, Inc. And Subsidiaries v. Commissioner Internal Revenue Service
849 F.2d 393, 62 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5021, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7844 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For tax purposes, a transaction structured as a sale of inventory will not be recognized as a bona fide sale if the "seller" retains effective control and dominion over the goods, indicating a lack of true economic substance to the transfer.
Facts:
- Paccar, through various divisions, engages in the manufacture and distribution of trucks, truck parts, mining vehicles, and rail cars.
- In 1976 and 1977, three Paccar divisions (Paccar Parts, Dart, and Wagner) entered into written agreements with Sajac Company, Inc., an unrelated corporation, for the disposition of certain excess, inactive, or unusable equipment parts.
- The agreements stipulated that Sajac would purchase these parts at scrap metal price, title and risk of loss would pass to Sajac, and the Paccar division would pay shipping costs.
- Paccar retained the right to repurchase any portion of the "scrap material" for at least four years, and Sajac was to advise Paccar of any other disposition of the goods.
- Sajac's owner, Jack Lemon, marketed Sajac's service as a "LONG TERM DORMANT WAREHOUSE" providing tax and space-saving benefits while allowing manufacturers to retain availability of inventory.
- Verbally, Sajac agreed not to sell the parts to anyone but Paccar, and to resell them to Paccar at the scrap price if the IRS challenged the tax benefits.
- Paccar's internal communications acknowledged that contractual control would prevent an "arms-length" sale but relied on "procedural controls" and Sajac's verbal agreement, also noting that IRS regulations precluded write-offs for material not defaced or made unusable.
- Paccar sent inventory to Sajac "as a matter of course" in order to retain the parts for future shipments to dealers but at the same time to attempt to achieve tax benefits as if the inventory had been sold.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined deficiencies against Paccar, Inc. for the tax years 1975 through 1977.
- Paccar, Inc. filed a petition with the United States Tax Court for a redetermination of these deficiencies.
- The United States Tax Court, after considering the issues, upheld the Commissioner's determination, finding that Paccar retained control over the inventory transferred to Sajac Company, Inc., and consequently disallowed the claimed inventory losses.
- Paccar, Inc. (appellant) appealed the decision of the United States Tax Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a transfer of inventory by a taxpayer to an unrelated third party constitute a bona fide sale, allowing the taxpayer to claim an inventory loss for tax purposes, when the taxpayer retains significant control over the disposition and repurchase of those goods, effectively preventing the transfer of true economic ownership?
Opinions:
Majority - Carroll, District Judge
No, a transfer of inventory under such circumstances does not constitute a bona fide sale for tax purposes because the taxpayer effectively retains control equivalent to ownership over the goods. The court affirmed the Tax Court's decision, emphasizing that the economic substance of a transaction, rather than its legal form, governs its characterization for income tax purposes, citing Gregory v. Helvering. Despite written agreements transferring title and risk of loss, Paccar retained significant control over the parts. This control was evidenced by the verbal agreement that Sajac would not sell to anyone but Paccar, the establishment of "procedural controls" for Sajac's management of Paccar inventory, Sajac's marketing itself as an "inventory management company" or "warehouse," and the intent to achieve tax benefits while retaining availability of parts. The court found that Paccar's arrangement with Sajac was a "thinly veiled subterfuge of a 'sale'" designed to circumvent the principles established in Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, which prohibits taxpayers from retaining excess inventory for future sale while claiming current inventory losses based on scrap value. The court further noted that the mere transfer of title is insufficient to establish a bona fide sale for tax purposes, particularly when an exclusive repurchase right defeats the buyer's true dominion over the goods, as illustrated by United States v. Ingredient Technology Corp. Sajac's compensation, while structured based on repurchases, effectively amounted to fair market value for storage services, and no significant transfer of risk occurred. The court rejected Sajac's argument that its system offered an economic "solution," reiterating the Supreme Court's stance in Thor that taxpayers cannot "have their cake and to eat it too" by claiming losses while retaining benefits of ownership. The court also affirmed the Tax Court's ruling against Paccar raising a new issue concerning LIFO accounting adjustments during a Rule 155 proceeding, as it would require new evidence. Finally, it upheld the Commissioner's corrected deficiency determination regarding intercompany sales discounts, finding the Commissioner's expert provided sufficient evidentiary foundation.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the "economic substance over form" doctrine in tax law, particularly in the context of inventory write-downs and sales. It demonstrates that courts will look beyond the formal legal terms of an agreement to assess the true nature of a transaction, especially when tax avoidance is a primary motivation. The decision serves as a warning against schemes designed to circumvent established tax principles, like those in Thor Power Tool Co., by attempting to claim losses on assets over which the taxpayer effectively retains control. Future cases will likely scrutinize "sales" with repurchase options or other retained controls to determine if a genuine divestiture of economic ownership has occurred.
