- 15 -
Assuming arguendo that some type of account was created and
funds were segregated for petitioner, he did not have ready
access to it, and certain conditions had to be met or had to
occur before he could gain physical access to any funds.
Petitioner had to contact the Soviets, using a complex
arrangement of signal sites, to determine whether a “withdrawal”
could be made. Next, the Soviets had to arrange to have the cash
transferred into the United States and have it secretly left in a
prearranged location for petitioner. There was no certainty that
these conditions and steps could be accomplished under the
existing circumstances, and the conditions represented
substantial risks, limitations, and restrictions on petitioner’s
control of the funds, assuming they were even in existence and
segregated for his exclusive benefit. See Paul v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1992-582 (no constructive receipt where taxpayer would
have had to travel 68 miles in order to turn in winning lottery
ticket). There is no constructive receipt of income where
delivery of the cash is not dependent solely upon the volition of
the taxpayer. See Hornung v. Commissioner, supra at 435.
So long as the Soviets retained control over any funds or
promised set-asides, there was no practical or legal way in which
petitioner could compel payment. Constructive receipt of income
has been found where a corporation offers payment or pays by
check in one year, but the recipient refuses delivery or fails to
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011