- 43 -
or constructively received the amounts it was obligated to hold
in trust for the customer. In the cases at hand, respondent
argues, we need not inquire into the effect of contractual
restrictions upon the taxpayer’s use of funds collected from
customers, because even if the taxpayer’s use of the funds was
sufficiently restricted that collection did not constitute
receipt of income, the taxpayer acquired a fixed right to receive
the funds when it collected them and, hence, must include them in
income at that time.
Respondent’s contentions do not dispose of petitioners'
argument. Under the right-to-receive analysis of the Hansen line
of cases, which we have applied by analogy to the cases at hand,
it is clear that the amount withheld to secure the taxpayer's
obligations is income to the taxpayer; the question is only when
it must be accrued. By contrast, the question in Angelus Funeral
Home and Miele was whether the taxpayer received the amounts at
issue as income or as the property of another. Angelus Funeral
Home v. Commissioner, supra at 395, 407 F.2d at 212; Miele v.
Commissioner, supra at 289. A taxpayer cannot receive, or have
the right to receive, funds as income before it acquires a
beneficial interest in the funds. See Healy v. Commissioner, 345
U.S. 278, 282 (1953); Metairie Cemetery Association v. United
States, 282 F.2d 225, 230 (5th Cir. 1960); Portland Cremation
Association v. Commissioner, 31 F.2d 843, 845-846 (9th Cir.
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011