- 13 - Co. v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 75, 85-86 (1966) affd. on another ground 306 F.2d 516 (2d Cir. 1967), which is relied on by petitioners, is distinguishable because the debtor in that case was in a "stringent cash position" and apparently was unable to pay its obligations, precluding application of the doctrine. Although Sainte Claire had the right to receive payment on the 1968 note and was able to collect the note principal from Mr. Boccardo, it did not actually receive payment because its board decided to renew the note to April 1, 1990. Sainte Claire's voluntary choice not to receive payment is ineffective to prevent its constructive receipt of the principal amount of the note. Llewellyn v. Commissioner, 295 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1961), affg. T.C. Memo. 1960-197; Williams v. United States, 219 F.2d 523, 527 (5th Cir. 1955); United States v. Pfister, 205 F.2d 538, 541 (8th Cir. 1953); Willits v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 602, 613- 619 (1968); Woodbury v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 180, 196 (1967); Frank v. Commissioner, 22 T.C. 945 (1954), affd. per curiam 226 F.2d 600 (6th Cir. 1955); Deupree v. Commissioner, 1 T.C. 113, 8 (...continued) A. They get nine percent instead of six or seven or five or four from a borrower [Mr. Boccardo] that they could call up any day and say, hey, would you do me a favor, would you pay that note tomorrow, we've got to do this, and I'd say sure. Q. Now-- A. You're dealing with friends.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011