- 13 -
Co. v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 75, 85-86 (1966) affd. on another
ground 306 F.2d 516 (2d Cir. 1967), which is relied on by
petitioners, is distinguishable because the debtor in that case
was in a "stringent cash position" and apparently was unable to
pay its obligations, precluding application of the doctrine.
Although Sainte Claire had the right to receive payment on
the 1968 note and was able to collect the note principal from Mr.
Boccardo, it did not actually receive payment because its board
decided to renew the note to April 1, 1990. Sainte Claire's
voluntary choice not to receive payment is ineffective to prevent
its constructive receipt of the principal amount of the note.
Llewellyn v. Commissioner, 295 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1961),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1960-197; Williams v. United States, 219 F.2d
523, 527 (5th Cir. 1955); United States v. Pfister, 205 F.2d 538,
541 (8th Cir. 1953); Willits v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 602, 613-
619 (1968); Woodbury v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 180, 196 (1967);
Frank v. Commissioner, 22 T.C. 945 (1954), affd. per curiam 226
F.2d 600 (6th Cir. 1955); Deupree v. Commissioner, 1 T.C. 113,
8 (...continued)
A. They get nine percent instead of six or seven or
five or four from a borrower [Mr. Boccardo] that
they could call up any day and say, hey, would you
do me a favor, would you pay that note tomorrow,
we've got to do this, and I'd say sure.
Q. Now--
A. You're dealing with friends.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011