- 7 -
suggests otherwise. Secs. 61, 451(a); Commissioner v. Glenshaw
Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955); Roco v. Commissioner, 121 T.C.
160, 164-165 (2003) (payment made by the U.S. Government to the
taxpayer in a qui tam action is a reward and, as such, is
includable in gross income); sec. 1.61-2(a)(1), Income Tax Regs.
According to petitioner, however, the reward is not includable in
her 1999 income because she did not “constructively receive” the
reward during that year. In support of her position, petitioner
argues that because the distribution of the proceeds of the
reward was subject to an order of the bankruptcy court during
1999, she could not exercise the necessary dominion and control
over the reward to render it includable in her income for that
year. See sec. 1.451-2(a), Income Tax Regs.4
At the outset we should note that, as a general explanation
of the topic, we agree with petitioner’s discussion of the
doctrine of constructive receipt contained in her briefs. We
4 The term “constructive receipt” is defined in sec. 1.451-
2(a), Income Tax Regs., as follows:
(a) General rule. Income although not actually reduced
to a taxpayer’s possession is constructively received
by him in the taxable year during which it is credited
to his account, set apart for him, or otherwise made
available so that he may draw upon it at any time, or
so that he could have drawn upon it during the taxable
year if notice of intention to withdraw had been given.
However, income is not constructively received if the
taxpayer’s control of its receipt is subject to
substantial limitations or restrictions.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007