Erickson Post Acquisition, Inc. - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          $157,500 (plus interest).  Amoco is entitled to repayment of a              
          portion of the advance if petitioner sells the 60th Street                  
          property any time before the end of the 10-year term of the note.           
               As we explained in Burnham Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C.              
          953, 955-956 (1988), affd. 878 F.2d 86 (2d Cir. 1989),                      
               Respondent’s argument blurs the fine but very real                     
               distinction between a contingency that prevents a                      
               liability from being fixed, i.e., a condition                          
               precedent, and a contingency that may terminate an                     
               already fixed liability, i.e., a condition subsequent.                 
               * * *                                                                  
                    If existence of a liability depends on                            
               satisfaction of a condition precedent, the liability is                
               not unconditionally fixed * * *.  Liability does not in                
               fact arise until the condition is satisfied. * * * A                   
               liability subject to a condition subsequent, however,                  
               is definitely fixed, subject only to a condition which                 
               may cut off liability in the future. * * *                             
               The focus is on the obligation created at the time of the              
          transaction.  In Westpac Pac. Foods v. Commissioner, supra, and             
          Colombo v. Commissioner, supra, when the payments were made, the            
          recipient of the funds had no obligation to repay the funds.                
          That obligation would arise later if and when the recipient                 
          breached its underlying obligation to purchase the products.                
          Here, when Amoco paid the $175,000 to petitioner, petitioner had            
          an unconditional obligation to repay the full amount of the                 
          advance.                                                                    
               Respondent asserts that the advance was income to petitioner           
          in 1996 because petitioner had unfettered control over the                  
          payment when petitioner received the payment in 1996.  As pointed           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011