Close
Close

Cash payments for upgrades may be income

RFP
Tax Hot Topic - RetailTax Hot Topics Retail Update
To encourage auto dealerships to expand, modernize or renovate their facilities, some auto manufacturers offer facility image upgrade programs that promote a standard brand image so that all dealerships that carry the manufacturers’ brand look similar. The government’s position is that the payments are intended to motivate each dealership to upgrade its facilities and to defray the dealership’s costs for upgrades, not to reduce the dealership’s costs of vehicles.  

Recent IRS Legal Advice (AM 2014-004) addressed the tax implications of the receipt of such payments. Although the context is automotive dealers, the advice could apply more broadly and raises interesting related issues.

The IRS Legal Advice stated that auto dealerships are treating program payments inconsistently. Some exclude such payments from income, taking the position that the payments are nonshareholder contributions to capital under Section 118 of the Internal Revenue Code. Other dealerships and a trade association assert that payments reduce the basis in the constructed assets and should not be included in gross income. Still other dealerships might treat the amount received as a purchase price adjustment.  

In the Legal Advice, the IRS considered three separate fact patterns and concluded on whether the payments received by the dealerships would be income or would serve to reduce basis in the building improvement (or reduce the basis in purchased vehicles). In two of the fact patterns, the payments depended partly on purchases over a specified time period.

The IRS determined that, under the facts presented, all payments can be included in the dealerships’ gross income under Section 61 of the code. The dealerships had all agreed to make specific upgrades and would receive payments for the successful completion of those upgrades under the various programs. The IRS concluded that the dealerships, not the manufacturers, owned the property that was constructed or improved by using the payments. Under the facts in the Legal Advice, the dealerships receive payments to defray their expense for construction of, or improvements to, their property. Therefore, the IRS ruled that the automotive dealerships had been enriched by receiving the payments and had to include them in their taxable income.  The IRS stated that revenue recognition was not prevented or delayed by any subsequent conditions that might have required the dealerships to return some or all of the payments.  

The IRS further stated that because the dealerships own the improved property and must recognize income in connection with those payments, the payments received do not reduce the dealerships’ cost basis in the improved property.  

The IRS also addressed whether the payments received could be viewed as discounts on vehicles to be purchased later from the manufacturer. The agency concluded the payments were not discounts. The Legal Advice states that the test for whether a payment is a purchase price adjustment (i.e., a discount) is the parties’ intent and the purpose for which the payment, credit, allowance or rebate was paid. Although in the Legal Advice, the IRS stated that it was clear the parties intended the payment to relate to property improvements, not to the later purchase of vehicles from the manufacturer, the IRS later stated that the manufacturers want the dealerships to buy more vehicles from the manufacturers. Further, the case law cited by the IRS does not deal with an analogous fact pattern and thus does not support the IRS’s conclusory dismissal of the two situations in which the terms of the arrangements were based on sales of vehicles.      

Finally, the IRS considered whether the payments could be excluded from income as nonshareholder contributions to capital under Section 118. The IRS concluded, in part, based on case law dealing with similar payments to an auto dealer, that the dealerships could not exclude the cash payments from income under Section 118.  

The underlying issue of income versus nonincome can arise in a variety of retail situations beyond the one discussed here. Over the years, the IRS has considered cash payments received by retailers in numerous fact patterns and involving advance trade discounts, slotting payments, branding costs and payments related to cooperative advertising.  

In light of the IRS guidance on this topic, retailers that receive cash payments from vendors or other entities should consider whether they are treating these cash payments properly for U.S. federal income tax purposes.  Because these types of payments may not be included as income for book purposes, retailers may be inadvertently following book and under-reporting gross income. It’s important to analyze the terms of the contract and facts and circumstances of the arrangement to determine whether payments are appropriately recognized or excluded from income or treated as a purchase price adjustment.      

Contacts
Rich Shevak
206.398.2489
rich.shevak@us.gt.com

William Stickney
215.814.4020
william.stickney@us.gtcom

Jeff Betts
612.677.5118
jeff.betts@us.gt.com

Tax professional standards statement
This document supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the subject of this document, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax adviser to discuss the potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this document may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this document is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.

The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.