- 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