Schmidt Baking Company, Inc. - Page 18

                                           - 18 -                                            
                exception to the general rule for deferred compensation                      
                and deferred benefits pursuant to which an employer is                       
                allowed a deduction for the taxable year of the                              
                employer in which ends the taxable year of the employee                      
                in which the compensation or benefit is includible in                        
                gross income.  [H. Conf. Rept. 100-495, 920 (1987),                          
                1987-3 C.B. 193, 201; emphasis added.]                                       
                Respondent argues that this change, coupled with the absence                 
          of any reference to funded and vested amounts, shows that the                      
          conference committee (and hence the Congress which enacted the                     
          added sentence) intended to exclude such amounts from payment and                  
          permit only actual "cash in pocket" to be considered as having                     
          been paid.  Again, we disagree.  A careful reading of the                          
          conference committee report shows that the committee was making a                  
          change only in the timing of the deduction in respect of vacation                  
          pay in contrast to the timing of other deferred compensation                       
          payments, and then only in the context of clear recognition that                   
          its change applied only to payments after the 2-1/2 month period.                  
                Having found our way through the statutory briarpatch of                     
          sections 83, 162, and 404 and the regulations thereunder, it is                    
          obvious that the disposition of this case turns on a single,                       
          straightforward question, namely whether petitioner paid the                       
          vacation and severance pay within the 2-1/2 month period.                          
          Viewing the totality of the statutory and regulatory provisions                    
          and the pertinent legislative history in their entirety, we think                  
          that petitioner did so by means of an irrevocable parting of                       
          funds, through the creation of the letter of credit, with the                      
          separately designated employee-beneficiaries, which was not                        




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011