- 13 -
unallocated compensation pool.
Petitioner next argues that there was no record in Jerome
Castree Interiors, Inc. of the bonus determination by the end of
the calendar year. Similarly here, petitioner made no record
whatsoever of the bonus determination by the end of its fiscal
year. Petitioner argues that the shareholders in Jerome Castree
Interiors, Inc. did not include the income in the same calendar
year as the corporation’s proposed deduction. Here, petitioner
chose to use a fiscal year ending July 31, 1994. Petitioner
cannot be treated as a calendar year taxpayer for the purpose of
determining when the deduction is allowed and a fiscal year
taxpayer for all other purposes.
Finally, petitioner argues that the corporate resolution in
Jerome Castree Interiors, Inc. authorizing the pool of
compensation specifically conditioned payment on the
corporation’s ability to make payment. Here, there was no
corporate resolution authorizing the payment. Certainly a
corporate resolution authorizing payment conditioned on the
corporation’s ability to make payment (when the corporation in
fact was able to do so) is better than no resolution at all.
The factual distinctions identified by petitioner are either
irrelevant or show that the taxpayers in Jerome Castree
Interiors, Inc. had a stronger case for constructive receipt
than petitioner has here.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011