Westpac Pacific Food v. Commissioner
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
451 F.3d 970 (2006)
- Written by Robert Taylor, JD
Facts
Westpac Pacific Food (Westpac) (plaintiff) was a purchasing syndicate comprised of three grocery-store chains. Westpac entered into discounted volume-purchase contracts with grocery suppliers. The suppliers advanced approximately $5 million annually to Westpac as a discount on Westpac’s future purchases. Whenever Westpac purchased the agreed-upon volume of inventory at full price, Westpac would keep the cash advance as a discount for the volume purchase. Whenever Westpac purchased less than the agreed-upon volume, Westpac would repay the cash-advance amount, prorated to reflect the actual volume that Westpac purchased. Westpac was an accrual-basis taxpayer. When Westpac received the cash advances, Westpac accrued the advances as a liability, as was generally accepted. Westpac offset this liability pro rata whenever Westpac purchased inventory to which the discount applied. The federal tax commissioner (defendant) sought to tax Westpac on the cash advances in the tax years the advances were received, asserting that the advances were taxable income. Westpac petitioned the United States Tax Court for a redetermination. The tax court entered judgment in favor of the commissioner. Westpac appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kleinfield, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
