Lawrence K. Mudd - Page 9

                                        - 8 -                                         
          initial check--were not signed by petitioner, as well as                    
          petitioner’s credible testimony that he and his wife were “having           
          some problems” at that time, and that if she had given petitioner           
          either of the checks, he would have cashed it.  We further find             
          that petitioner was not in constructive receipt of the income.              
          Because the checks were never delivered to petitioner, he was               
          deprived of the control over their disposition that would have              
          been necessary for constructive receipt.  Single v. Commissioner,           
          supra (taxpayer did not constructively receive income in the form           
          of State tax refund where the taxpayer’s spouse withheld the                
          refund check until after the taxable year); sec. 1.451-2(a),                
          Income Tax Regs.                                                            
               Because petitioner neither actually nor constructively                 
          received the IRA distribution during 1995, the $1,582.58 is not             
          includable in petitioner’s income in that year.  Single v.                  
          Commissioner, supra; sec. 408(d)(1); sec. 1.408-4(a)(1), Income             
          Tax Regs.                                                                   
               The second issue for decision is whether petitioner is                 
          entitled to a dependency exemption deduction for his daughter Amy           
          Mudd in 1996.  Although the notice of deficiency did not allow              
          petitioner any dependency exemption deductions, respondent has              
          conceded that petitioner is entitled to two such deductions for             
          1996, one for Robert Mudd and one for Mara Mudd.  Petitioner                
          argues that he is entitled to a third exemption deduction for               






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011