- 5 -
Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 285 (1958); William J.
Lemp Brewing Co. v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. 586 (1952); Vander
Poel, Francis & Co. v. Commissioner, 8 T.C. 407 (1947); Sandoval
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-430; 2 Mertens, Law of Federal
Income Taxation, sec. 10:33.50, at 80 (1991 rev.).
Petitioner misplaces reliance upon such cases as Fetzer
Refrigerator Co. v. United States, 437 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. 1971),
and Hyplains Dressed Beef, Inc. v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 119
(1971), to support its position that constructive receipt is the
appropriate standard. Those cases, which are inapposite,
involved application of the matching principle of section
267(a)(2), which matching principal is: An accrual basis
taxpayer is not entitled to deduct currently any amount if it is
payable to a related person and, because of the payee’s method of
accounting, the item is not currently includable in the payee’s
gross income. See sec. 267(a)(2); Tate & Lyle, Inc. & Subs. v.
Commissioner, 103 T.C. 656, 659-661 (1994), revd. and remanded on
other grounds 87 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 1996). Section 267 applies
when the mismatching arises because the parties use different
methods of accounting. That is not the case here. Petitioner
and the Foriers are cash basis taxpayers. There is no
mismatching of a deduction and inclusion due to different
accounting methods. Petitioner distorts the language of section
267, arguing that such language would allow a cash basis taxpayer
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011