- 5 -
sellers’ agents for the sale of cotton. The sellers could
instruct the gins to defer the proceeds of the sale to the
following year. It was the sellers’ decision to defer payments.
The agreement of deferral was between the sellers and their
agents. The sellers’ decision “to have the gins hold the sales
proceeds until the following year was a self-imposed limitation *
* * Such a self-imposed limitation does not serve to change the
general rule that receipt by an agent is receipt by the
principal.” Id. at 593. The court found that “The income was
received by the * * * [sellers’] agents in the year of the sale.
The fact that the * * * [sellers] restricted their access to the
sales proceeds does not change the tax status of the money
received.” Id.
Here, in accordance with Bot v. Commissioner, supra, and
with the terms of the Uniform Marketing Agreement, we find MCP
was the agent of petitioner. As indicated in the August 30,
1995, letter from MCP, the 1995 yearend payment representing his
share of sales proceeds received by MCP during its fiscal year
ending September 30, 1995, was made available to him as of mid-
November of that year. Petitioner conceded that the same
practice was followed in 1994, which means that the yearend
payment for that year constituting his share of sales proceeds
received by MCP during its fiscal year ending September 30, 1994,
was made available to petitioner as of mid-November 1994.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011