- 33 -
of the above-cited cases, there was a binding contract or agree-
ment, or a superseding binding contract or agreement, to defer
income before it was due.
With respect to each of Mr. Palmer’s approved monthly in-
voices 0011 and 0012, we have found that the June 2, 1995 oral
modification was not made before the amount of nonemployee compen-
sation reflected in each such invoice that Olin Ordnance owed to
him was due.
With respect to Mr. Palmer’s approved monthly invoices 0013
through 0015, we have found that, as of the time the June 2, 1995
oral modification was made, Mr. Palmer did not have an absolute
and unconditional right to receive the amount of nonemployee
compensation reflected in each such invoice that Olin Ordnance
owed to him. However, the cases on which petitioners rely are
nonetheless distinguishable from the instant case with respect to
those invoices. This Court and its predecessor, the Board of Tax
Appeals, held that the binding contracts or agreements involved in
the cases relied upon by petitioners were effective to preclude
application of the constructive-receipt doctrine. In contrast, on
the instant record, we find that the June 2, 1995 oral modifica-
tion does not preclude application of the constructive-receipt
doctrine to the aggregate amount of nonemployee compensation that
Olin Ordnance owed to Mr. Palmer with respect to his approved
monthly invoices 0013 through 0015. That is because we find on
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011