- 14 - 120 (1942); Lewis v. Commissioner, 30 B.T.A. 318, 324 (1934). The rule is summarized in the following excerpt from Oliver v. United States, 193 F. Supp. 930, 933 (E.D. Ark. 1961), which we quoted with approval in Martin v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. at 823- 824: [Where a taxpayer] acquires an unconditioned vested right to receive the proceeds of the sale, and the buyer is ready, willing, and able to make payment, the taxpayer cannot avoid treating the proceeds as income for that year by voluntarily declining to accept payment during that year, or by requesting the purchaser not to pay him until a later year, or even by voluntarily putting himself under some legal disability or restriction with respect to payment. In such circumstances, he will be deemed in constructive receipt of the income notwithstanding his refusal to accept payment or his self-imposed restraints on payment. [Emphasis supplied.] Petitioners contend that tax considerations played no part in the decision to renew Mr. Boccardo's note and that there were valid business reasons for the renewal. However, the presence or absence of a tax avoidance motive does not control the applicability of the constructive receipt doctrine here. As was stated in Loose v. United States, 74 F.2d 147, 150 (8th Cir. 1934): If the sole basis and reason for constructive receipt of income were the avoidance of fraud in tax evasion, * * * [the taxpayer's] argument would carry much force because there was obviously no thought of tax evasion here. However, the strongest reason for holding constructive receipt of income to be within the statute is that for taxation purposes income is received or realized when it is made subject to the will and control of the taxpayer and can be, except for his own action or inaction, reduced to actual possession. So viewed, it makes no difference why the taxpayer did notPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011