- 14 -
120 (1942); Lewis v. Commissioner, 30 B.T.A. 318, 324 (1934).
The rule is summarized in the following excerpt from Oliver v.
United States, 193 F. Supp. 930, 933 (E.D. Ark. 1961), which we
quoted with approval in Martin v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. at 823-
824:
[Where a taxpayer] acquires an unconditioned vested
right to receive the proceeds of the sale, and the
buyer is ready, willing, and able to make payment, the
taxpayer cannot avoid treating the proceeds as income
for that year by voluntarily declining to accept
payment during that year, or by requesting the
purchaser not to pay him until a later year, or even by
voluntarily putting himself under some legal disability
or restriction with respect to payment. In such
circumstances, he will be deemed in constructive
receipt of the income notwithstanding his refusal to
accept payment or his self-imposed restraints on
payment. [Emphasis supplied.]
Petitioners contend that tax considerations played no part
in the decision to renew Mr. Boccardo's note and that there were
valid business reasons for the renewal. However, the presence or
absence of a tax avoidance motive does not control the
applicability of the constructive receipt doctrine here. As was
stated in Loose v. United States, 74 F.2d 147, 150 (8th Cir.
1934):
If the sole basis and reason for constructive receipt
of income were the avoidance of fraud in tax evasion,
* * * [the taxpayer's] argument would carry much force
because there was obviously no thought of tax evasion
here. However, the strongest reason for holding
constructive receipt of income to be within the statute
is that for taxation purposes income is received or
realized when it is made subject to the will and
control of the taxpayer and can be, except for his own
action or inaction, reduced to actual possession. So
viewed, it makes no difference why the taxpayer did not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011