Tesco Driveaway Co., Inc. - Page 11




                                        - 11 -                                        
          through proper corporate procedures, the specific amount of                 
          compensation to be paid to each recipient.  The authorization of            
          an unallocated pool of compensation to be divided among the                 
          recipients is not sufficient for constructive receipt, even as              
          in Jerome Castree Interiors, Inc., where the allocation had been            
          made orally at the board meeting but was not reflected in the               
          formal resolution, and even as in Lacy Contracting, Inc., where             
          the controlling shareholder had the ultimate power to make the              
          allocation unilaterally.  As stated by the Court in Jerome                  
          Castree Interiors, Inc.:                                                    
               It is clear that in the case of any corporation,                       
               constructive receipt is not applicable unless some                     
               record is made of the amount due the shareholder.                      
               * * *                                                                  
                    * * * a shareholder is not taxable merely because                 
               he has the authority to influence the actions of the                   
               corporation and the authority to withdraw funds; funds                 
               are not constructively received until the corporation                  
               takes the necessary action to set them apart for him.                  
               * * * [Jerome Castree Interiors, Inc. v. Commissioner,                 
               supra at 570; emphasis added; citations omitted.]                      
              Similarly, in Kaw Dehydrating Co. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C.             
          370 (1980), the Court held that the controlling shareholder was             
          not in constructive receipt of oral bonuses where the corporate             
          resolutions stated only that the bonuses had been “discussed”,              
          but not that they had been approved.  “In the instant case, as              
          we have noted, there was no resolution nor any subsequent,                  
          timely corporate record to support the proposition that a                   
          binding resolution had been intended.”  Id. at 377.                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011