Chris Alan Roberts - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                          
          Furstenberg v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 755, 791 (1984) (citing                 
          Loose v. United States, 74 F.2d 147, 150 (8th Cir. 1934)).                   
               We hold that the distribution income was available to                   
          petitioner and, except for his own inaction while in alcohol                 
          rehabilitation, was subject to his will and control in 1997.                 
          Despite his incarceration, petitioner had the ability to exercise            
          dominion and control over the distribution check.  Petitioner’s              
          incarceration was not a sufficient impediment to his control over            
          the check that was received at his residence during 1997.  He had            
          access to a telephone, and there were individuals who could have             
          assisted petitioner in cashing the check.  The fact that the                 
          distribution was made in the form of a cashier’s check ensured               
          that funds were set aside and available for petitioner.  Other               
          than his inaction, petitioner did not show or argue that there               
          were any other limitations or restrictions on his control over               
          the distribution check.  Accordingly, we hold that the                       
          distribution income was constructively received by petitioner in             
          1997 and was includable in petitioner’s income for that year.                
               To reflect the foregoing,                                               
                                              Decision will be entered                 
                                        for respondent.                                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  

Last modified: May 25, 2011