- 11 -
Sainte Claire's board of directors met and extended payment of
the principal thereon". Moreover, the resolution reflecting the
board's action stated that the 1968 note "has matured".
While Mr. Boccardo discussed extending his note with members
of Sainte Claire's board and others prior to the due date of the
note, we are not persuaded by the record in the instant case that
an agreement or understanding that the note would be extended
existed prior to the vote of the board on November 1, 1988.
Accordingly, the cases holding that a taxpayer may effectively
defer for tax purposes receipt of income payable pursuant to an
agreement by entering into a superseding agreement prior to the
time the income is due pursuant to the terms of the original
agreement, see, e.g., Martin v. Commissioner, supra at 823-824;
Oates v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. 570, 584-585 (1952), affd. 207
F.2d 711 (7th Cir. 1953); Veit v. Commissioner, 8 T.C. 809, 817-
819 (1947); Kimbell v. Commissioner, 41 B.T.A. 940, 948-949
(1940), are not controlling in the instant case because the
agreement to defer payment was not made until Sainte Claire's
right to the income became vested.
The second factor to be considered is whether Sainte Claire
was able to collect the principal amount of the 1968 note from
Mr. Boccardo at the time it became due. Petitioners, in arguing
that Sainte Claire did not constructively receive the 1968 note
principal, stress that no funds of Mr. Boccardo's were
transferred to, set aside for, or otherwise made available to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011