Court Case Brief : Comm’r V. Indianapolis Power & Lighting Co., 493 US 203

Facts of the Case
Indianapolis Power and Lighting Company (IPL) is one of the regulated Indiana utilities
and the tax basis for accrual. The company required customers who have suspect credit to pay
a deposit to the company as an assurance of payment of future electric bills. Before the
termination of the service, the consumers who satisfied the credit test would receive a refund of
the deposit they made to the company (“Comm’r V. Indianapolis Power & Lighting Co.,” 2016).
The other option was for the customer to decide that the deposit should be used in settling future
bills. There are times when the deposits were subjected to the unfettered use and control of
the IPL company activities. The company did not treat the deposits as income. The time of
receipt and instead treated the amounts and current liabilities in the books of accounts.
When the auditing was taking place, the IPL company returns for the year of tax has
issues. The commissioner in charge of the auditing process stipulated that there was a deficiency
indicating that the deposit was treated as advance payments for the electricity and should be
taxable to IPL company in the year of receipt. The tax court ruling was in favor of IPL when they
filed a petition for redetermination and the holding of the deposit (“Comm’r V. Indianapolis
Power & Lighting Co.,” 2016). They argue that the main aim of holding the deposits was to
serve as a security purpose that the clients will pay their future electricity bills rather than as a
prepayment of the income. Upon appealing, their appeal was affirmed by the court, and the
commissioner opted to seek further clarification from the United States Supreme Court.
Issue/ Laws at Hand
The main issue in the case was to determine whether the deposits were part of the
income. The question at hand was whether the deposits made by the customers to the IPL
electricity company should be taxable and be treated as a section of income. The answer is no
from the ruling that the court gave. The action hinges standards of legality that a court should
utilize in the evaluation of the taxability of the customers. The argument presented by IRS is that
there should be a proper test to establish whether the consequences that result from the form such
a kind of deposits can be set forth (“Comm’r V. Indianapolis Power & Lighting Co.,” 2016). IPL
was an accrual basis for a period of five foundations and treated the deposits and current
liabilities. If the deposits were to be used later in offsetting the bill of customers then IPL would
have made the relevant accounting changes at that moment. The unclaimed deposits escheated to
the state.
Any refunds that result from the termination of services should be made through
offsetting the amount of deposit from the last electric bill of the customer. For the customers
whose electric bills were held for the previous 12 months, it was within their obligation to
receive a payment interest of 6% each fiscal year (“Comm’r V. Indianapolis Power & Lighting
Co.,” 2016). The data on the requirements of the deposit and relevant refunds was set in the
pamphlet that the IPL company needed to give its customers. The amount of sediment was twice
the approximated monthly bill of the customers, and IPL paid interest at an annual rate of 3% for
the sums that were held in the last six months. The benefit was to be paid at the time when the
deposit was refunded.
Conclusion of the Court
The court realized that IPL was not enjoying the complete dominion over the deposits
made by the customers. IPL had the responsibility to secure repayment of a deposit in situations
where the customer terminated the contract or established credit for the goods. Hence, the legal
right for ILP to keep the money depended on the consecutive decisions that the customer would

COURT CASE BRIEF 3

make. Customers might have decided to have the deposit applicable to the future expenses or on
the utility adherence towards the duties of the contract. Also, the court concluded that the
dominion of IPL over the deposit funds was less than the jurisdiction commonly present in any
form of payment (“Comm’r V. Indianapolis Power & Lighting Co.,” 2016). Hence, the argument
presented by IRS that the deposit was a form of advance payment for electricity was uphold and
should be taxable from the income of IPL in the year of receipt.
Through a unanimous decision, the court decided that whether the payment included the
income when it was received is dependent on the rights and obligation of the parties. That should
have taken place at the time that the decision was made. The potential of deciding on what will
happen on the deposit is a distinction of loan from the advance payment. In contrast, the utility
clients for IPL had retained the reason for the repayment. While some of the customers may
apply the funds towards the purchase of electricity, there is an assumption that they have no right
to do so. Since the utility did not require the dominion over the money, the deposits that the
customers made did not constitute the income for taxes and the time the deposit was made.
Analysis
The case is a highlight of how the United States treats the deposits. The code for tax in
the United States operates advance payment and loans separately. The court made the
appropriate decision since the full amount of advance payment for services is subjected to tax
towards the recipient. The tax is applicable even if there is an extension of the services provided
past the taxable year. However, it should be in our understanding that a loan cannot be
considered as gross income for the recipient. What the court realized in the case is that the rights
and obligations of the contracting party at the time of the payment are the sole determiners of
whether the amount will be considered to be a loan or an advance payment (“Comm’r V.
Indianapolis Power & Lighting Co.,” 2016). The deposits of customers cannot be treated as
advance payments for electricity and thus should not be a part of the taxable income.
Although the lighting company gets some benefits from the deposits, there are no
requisites for overall dominion. The client no longer needs their services that will have to repay
the deposit amount. From the amended rules, IPL was to refund all the customers who paid a
deposit for the electricity on a timely basis for nine months consistently.

COURT CASE BRIEF 4

Reference

Comm’r V. Indianapolis Power & Lighting Co., 493 US 203. 2016.