- 15 -
“paid” when constructively received.
Fourth, petitioner argues that the Kaw Dehydrating Co.
bonuses were adjusted after the close of the fiscal year. We do
not know whether the payment allocation here was likewise
adjusted after the end of petitioner’s fiscal year because there
is no evidence to show what was determined prior to the end of
petitioner’s fiscal year. Petitioner offered no evidence to
show that the allocation among the Gentrys had been made prior
to the end of petitioner’s fiscal year. It is sufficient here
that the potential for a post-fiscal-year adjustment exists
because petitioner took no formal action to set the specific
allocation prior to the end of its fiscal year.
Finally, petitioner argues that in Kaw Dehydrating Co., the
“stockholders reported their respective bonuses on their
personal income tax returns in the year following the year in
which they were awarded.” This statement raises three potential
issues. First, should the constructive receipt doctrine apply
differently depending on the length of time between the alleged
constructive receipt and the actual receipt? Second, how should
the recipient’s treatment of the item on the recipient’s tax
return affect the payor’s right to a deduction? Finally, does
the rule operate differently depending on whether the payor has
a fiscal or a calendar tax year?
Petitioner suggests that the constructive receipt doctrine
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011