- 4 -
Petitioner argues that, despite receipt of the distribution
check at his residence during July 1997, he was unable to “apply”
or cash it until May 1998 following his release from prison. On
that basis, petitioner contends that the 401(k) distribution
should not be included in income for 1997. Conversely,
respondent argues that petitioner actually or constructively
received income based on the receipt of the distribution check at
petitioner’s residence during July 1997. To prevail, petitioner
must show that the distribution should not be recognized in his
1997 income.5 Rule 142(a).
Income, although not actually reduced to a taxpayer’s
possession, is constructively received during the taxable year it
is (1) credited to a taxpayer’s account, (2) set apart for a
taxpayer, or (3) otherwise made available to the taxpayer.
However, income is not constructively received if the taxpayer’s
control of the income is subject to substantial limitations or
restrictions. See sec. 1.451-2(a), Income Tax Regs.; see also
Ames v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 104 (1999); Childs v.
Commissioner, 103 T.C. 634 (1994). Further, for taxation
purposes income is received or realized “when it is made subject
to the will and control of the taxpayer and can be, except for
his own action or inaction, reduced to actual possession”.
5 While the examination commenced after July 22, 1998,
petitioner does not meet the burden shifting requirements of sec.
7491(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011