The British Olympic Association today suffered a blow in their cash dispute with London 2012 organisers after the IOC ruled against them.
The IOC say their ruling should be final and binding but it may not mean the end of the row - the BOA had previously lodged a submission with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne.
The issue surrounds any money left over after the London 2012 Games - the BOA are due to get a cut but claim the running costs of the Paralympics should not be taken into account when calculating the surplus.
London 2012 have disputed this and now the IOC have ruled against the BOA, with IOC president Jacques Rogge signing the decision.
An IOC spokesman said: "The IOC was asked to reach a final and binding decision on how the surplus of the Games should be defined.
"Having studied the documents and the past recent history of the Games bidding process we have decided that the word 'surplus' clearly represents the financial results from the staging of the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games combined.
"The IOC would like to see a swift resolution to this dispute - to allow all parties to concentrate on delivering what will be outstanding Games in London next year."
London 2012 organisers welcomed the IOC's finding and claimed the issues now settled.
A spokeswoman said: "We are pleased that the IOC has ruled on this technical point confirming we should continue to determine any surplus on the basis of combined costs and revenues from both the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
"Now this is settled we look forward to moving ahead together with the BOA to realise our shared vision of hosting a spectacular Olympic and Paralympic Games."
London 2012 stressed the dispute would not affect the staging of the Games next year nor the preparations of the British athletes.
If the BOA proceed with their claim to CAS that the word 'Games' in the host city contract refers to Olympics and not Paralympics, the IOC's ruling means they will be directly challenging a written decision from Rogge.
That could have repercussions in terms of longer-term relationships between BOA leaders and the IOC.