In Giant Eagle v. Commissioner
, No. 14-3961 (3d Cir. 2016), the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the Tax Court’s order denying the taxpayer’s fuel rewards program deductions on the grounds that the deductions were permissible under the all events test. The 3rd Circuit, in a 2-to-1 decision, found the liability to be fixed at the time the discount was earned.
The taxpayer, Giant Eagle Inc., operates a chain of retail supermarkets, pharmacies, gas stations and convenience stores in the U.S. The taxpayer established a fuel rewards program in 1991. The taxpayer’s current version of the program, fuelperks!, links customers’ rewards at the gas pump to prior grocery purchases. For example, for every $50 of groceries purchased, a cardholder earns a 10- cents-per-gallon discount on gas. The brochure distributed to customers describing the program indicated that the discounts expired on the last day of the month, three months after they are earned, and that the promotion was valid for a limited time and could end without prior notice.
For the years at issue, 2006 and 2007, the taxpayer didn’t end the promotion or revoke any accumulated discounts. The appeals court determined that none of the published program parameters suggested that the taxpayer had the right to retract rewards that customers had already accrued, nor had such retroactive termination occurred or been contemplated during the history of the program.
On its 2006 and 2007 income tax returns, Giant Eagle, which is an accrual basis taxpayer, deducted under the recurring item exception the discounts its customers had accumulated at year end based on a formula that considered historical redemptions rates. From the outset of the fuelperks! program, the taxpayer tracked the customers’ redemption of accumulated discounts. The IRS, however, disallowed the taxpayer’s deductions.
At the Tax Court
, Giant Eagle argued that the discounts that had accumulated but weren’t applied by year’s end satisfied the all-events test because the liability became fixed when the discounts were issued. Alternatively, the taxpayer argued that the accrued discounts should be treated as sales- accompanying “trade stamps or premium coupons,” enabling Giant Eagle to offset the estimated costs against gross receipts from grocery sales. The Tax Court rejected these arguments, reasoning that the deductions didn’t satisfy the all-events test, because the purchase of gasoline functioned as a condition precedent to customers’ redemption of discounts earned at checkout and the liability was fixed only after customers applied the accumulated discounts to a fuel purchase. Furthermore, the Tax Court held that the regulations governing trading stamps didn’t apply to the discounts, because the gasoline discounts couldn’t be redeemed in “merchandise, cash, or other property.”
At issue before the 3rd Circuit was whether the fact of the liability was fixed at yearend. The court considered several applicable cases including U.S. v. Hughes Properties, Inc.
, 476 U.S. 593 (1986) and its own decision in Lukens Steel Co. v. Commissioner
, 442 F.2d 1131 (3d Cir. 1971). In Hughes Properties, a casino operator was entitled to deduct the annual increase in its progressive jackpot because the anticipated liability was fixed under Nevada law, which required a payoff. In Lukens Steel
, the 3rd Circuit allowed a deduction for a contingent liability account where a collective bargaining agreement made payment certain.
As in Lukens Steel
, the court determined whether the taxpayer’s anticipated liability was fixed at yearend with reference to contract law principles. The court agreed with the taxpayer’s characterizations of the fuelperks! rewards as a unilateral contract formed at checkout, which conferred a liability upon performance (in this case, at checkout). The court reasoned that it was irrelevant that neither the total amount of the anticipated liability nor the identity of all of the customers who eventually applied discounts toward gasoline purchased could be conclusively identified at yearend. Furthermore, the court indicated that the taxpayer mitigated the risk of overstating the value of the rewards redeemed by tracking and accounting for prospective nonredeemers.
The circuit court also said that Giant Eagle demonstrated the existence of both an absolute liability and a near certainty that the liability would soon be discharged by payment. Additionally, the IRS conceded that the chance of nonredemption had been calculated reasonably accurately. The court concluded that the all-events test demands no more. Accordingly, the 3rd Circuit concluded that following Hughes Properties
and Lukens Steel
, Giant Eagle was entitled to deduct the fuelperks! related liability incurred during the years at issue.
Tax professional standards statement
This content 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 topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their 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 content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content 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.