- 12 -
Sainte Claire during 1988. We note that the existence of an
entry crediting the note principal to Sainte Claire on Mr.
Boccardo's books is not required for a finding of constructive
receipt.7 Cooney v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. 883, 885-887 (1952);
Hooper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-108. Moreover, at the
time that the note was due, Mr. Boccardo, a successful attorney
and real estate investor, was worth over $50 million and had a
substantial income. Although, because of commitments connected
with his real estate investments, he did not have sufficient cash
on hand to pay the note, he admitted that he could have borrowed
the funds to do so.
An obligor's lack of ready cash does not prevent
constructive receipt of an amount due a taxpayer where the
obligor has the ability to borrow the funds necessary for
payment. A.D. Saenger, Inc. v. Commissioner, 84 F.2d 23, 25 (5th
Cir. 1936), affg. 33 B.T.A. 135 (1935); Hyplains Dressed Beef,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 119, 127 (1971); Ohio Battery &
Ignition Co. v. Commissioner, 5 T.C. 283, 287-288 (1945).
Despite his other commitments, Mr. Boccardo could and would have
paid the note had Sainte Claire requested him to do so.8 Rhombar
7 Mr. Boccardo apparently used the cash method of accounting.
8 Although his commitments may have made it inconvenient to do
so, Mr. Boccardo was willing to pay Sainte Claire. For instance,
at one point in his testimony, while discussing the advantages to
Sainte Claire of having him as its debtor, Mr. Boccardo stated:
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011