- 15 -
Respondent contends that, since the money was directly
released to petitioners for their use, the amounts should be
included in gross income when received. However, in Kang v.
Commissioner, supra, the earnest money was deposited into the
taxpayers’ personal checking account.
Additionally, respondent contends that petitioners were
under a contingent liability to repay the funds to CDC, and that
to avoid application of the claim of right doctrine, the
recipient must recognize in the year of receipt an existing and
fixed obligation to repay the amount received and must make
provisions for repayment. Hope v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 1020,
1030 (1971), affd. 471 F.2d 738 (3d Cir. 1973). A restriction on
the disposition or the use of the funds may also prevent the
application of the claim of right doctrine. Commissioner v.
Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 493 U.S. 203, 209 (1990).
We do not find that petitioners were merely under a
contingent obligation to repay the deposits to CDC as respondent
contends. There was an existing and fixed obligation for
petitioners to repay the deposits in the event that they breached
or “for any other reason other than a default by Buyer”. Indeed,
petitioners did repay an amount close to the amount CDC deposited
upon execution of the Mutual Release. Petitioners did not have
an unconditional right to retain the deposits. Bourne v.
Commissioner, supra at 649.
The cases that respondent relies on pertain to items that
would normally be included in income upon receipt even though it
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011