- 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