Robert and Lisa Morganstein - Page 11




                                       - 10 -                                         
          under section 446(e).5  Because BMP did not obtain that consent,            
          we sustain respondent’s determination in the notice of deficiency           
          that BMP must include the disputed amounts in income in the year            
          in which they were received.                                                
               Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case               
          Division.                                                                   
               To reflect the foregoing,                                              
                                             Decision will be entered                 
                                        for respondent.                               























          5Thus, whether the disputed amounts are “advance payments”                  
          or “deposits” under Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light              
          Co., supra, is irrelevant because, under Commissioner v. O.                 
          Liquidating Corp., supra, consent would be necessary to change              
          the treatment of the amounts in either case.                                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  

Last modified: May 25, 2011