- 6 -
correct. While petitioner may not have been given cash directly
from the escrow account, petitioner received the benefit of the
funds disbursed in the same manner as if the funds had been
deposited directly into its own account. To argue otherwise
would be an exercise in semantics, and it is well established
that the substance of the transaction, rather than its form, must
govern the tax consequences. Garcia v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 491
(1983) (citing Commissioner v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331
(1945); Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935); Biggs v.
Commissioner, 69 T.C. 905 (1978), affd. 632 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir.
1980)).
Petitioner contends that "an escrow not under the control of
the taxpayer is neither a vehicle for the realization of income
nor the receipt of the escrow proceeds themselves." In support
thereof, petitioner cites the following cases: Swaim v. United
States, 651 F.2d 1066 (5th Cir. 1981); Sprague v. United States,
627 F.2d 1044 (10th Cir. 1980); Biggs v. Commissioner, supra;
Carlton v. United States, 385 F.2d 238 (5th Cir. 1967); Garcia v.
Commissioner, supra; Barker v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 555 (1980);
Brauer v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1134 (1980); Fredericks v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-27; Grannemann v. United States,
649 F.Supp. 949 (E.D. Mo. 1986).
Most of the cases cited by petitioner have a common thread;
namely, a discussion of or reference to the doctrine of
constructive receipt. The doctrine generally provides that a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011