- 11 -
by Ms. Burkes' attorney, Ms. Burkes did not have the $55,636
available for her benefit until 1991.
We have found, based on the parties' stipulation of facts,
that the Cleveland Municipal Court garnished $55,645.82 from Mr.
Burkes during 1990. We have also found that $47,668.31 was
received by Ms. Burkes' attorney as of December 27, 1990, and
that $7,977.51 was not received by Ms. Burkes' attorney until
January 8, 1991. Additionally, we have found that $4,364 was
received by Ms. Burkes from Mr. Burkes during 1991. Accordingly,
with respect to the $7,977.51 and $4,364 amounts, Ms. Burkes is
required to include those amounts in her 1991 income. As to the
$7,977.51 amount, we find respondent's 1990 determination for Ms.
Burkes to be in error.
As to the $47,668.31 received by Ms. Burkes' attorney as of
December 27, 1990, the principles of constructive receipt dictate
that we hold that Ms. Burkes was required to report that amount
as alimony for 1990 even though she did not actually physically
receive that amount until 1991.
Receipt of payment by an agent is constructive receipt by
the principal. Maryland Cas. Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 342,
346 (1920); Joyce v. Commissioner, 42 T.C. 628, 639 (1964).
Even if it were agreed between the agent and the principal that
the agent would not distribute the funds received to the
principal until a subsequent year, courts have found constructive
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011