- 36 -
tioners’ approved monthly invoices 0011 through 0016 covering the
period from February 6, 1995, to the execution of the July 1995
amendment was due to Mr. Palmer, and (2) that paragraph 6 of the
July 1995 amendment precludes application of the constructive-
receipt doctrine to each such amount.
In support of their position regarding the July 1995 amend-
ment, petitioners also rely on the same cases discussed above on
which they rely to support their argument regarding the alleged
oral modification of the Marion plant/Palmer consulting agreement.
We find all of those cases to be distinguishable from the instant
case and petitioners’ reliance on them to be misplaced. As
discussed above, in the cases on which petitioners rely, there was
a binding contract or agreement, or a superseding binding contract
or agreement, to defer income before it was due. In contrast, in
the instant case, we find on the record before us that the July
1995 amendment was not effective retroactively to September 12,
1994. We further find on that record that paragraph 6 of the July
1995 amendment permitting Mr. Palmer to defer the amount of
nonemployee compensation that Olin Ordnance owed to him was not
effective before the amount of such compensation was due with
respect to his approved monthly invoices 0011 through 0015.
With respect to Mr. Palmer’s approved monthly invoice 0016
covering the period from July 3 through July 30, 1995, we find on
the record presented that the July 1995 amendment applied to that
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