- 37 -
invoice. In making this finding, we rely heavily on the provision
in the Marion plant/Palmer consulting agreement that the term of
that agreement, which ended on June 30, 1995, could have been
extended only by mutual agreement of Olin Ordnance and Mr. Palmer
as set forth in a written document. We find that a written
document, here the July 1995 amendment, was necessary in order to
extend the Marion plant/Palmer consulting agreement beyond June
30, 1995. We further find that the July 1995 amendment was
effective before the amount of nonemployee compensation reflected
in Mr. Palmer’s approved monthly invoice 0016 was due. That is
because, as of July 1, 1995, 30 days had not expired from the date
(July 31, 1995) on which Olin Ordnance first received that in-
voice, and Olin Ordnance had not completed its invoice review
process, and its invoice payment authorization process with
respect to that invoice.
Although we have found that the July 1995 amendment applied
to Mr. Palmer’s approved monthly invoice 0016 before the amount of
nonemployee compensation reflected therein was due, the cases on
which petitioners rely do not require us to conclude that the
constructive-receipt doctrine is inapplicable to the amount of
such nonemployee compensation. Moreover, assuming arguendo that
we had found that the July 1995 amendment was effective retroac-
tively to September 12, 1994, and applied not only to Mr. Palmer’s
approved monthly invoice 0016 but also to his approved monthly
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