Constructive receipt

Last updated

For federal income tax purposes, the doctrine of constructive receipt is used to determine when a cash-basis taxpayer has received gross income. [1] A taxpayer is subject to tax in the current year if he or she has unfettered control in determining when items of income will or should be paid. [2] Unlike actual receipt, constructive receipt does not require physical possession of the item of income in question.

Contents

Background

The full text of the IRS regulation defining constructive receipt states as follows: [2]

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.

The United States Tax Court more concisely articulated the doctrine of constructive receipt in Davis v. Commissioner . [3] The court stated that for income to be constructively received, the funds must be made available to the taxpayer without substantial limitations. [3] At issue was whether or not a taxpayer faced such substantial limitations when a check was available to her at the post office on the last day of the tax year after the mail carrier attempted to deliver the certified letter containing it to her home earlier the same day. The taxpayer was not at home when the first delivery attempt was made and the carrier left a note that the letter would be at the post office for her. The taxpayer retrieved the check from the post office several days later, just after the new tax year began. Courts had previously held that when a taxpayer makes a decision to be unavailable to take delivery of a check, then he will not satisfy the substantial limitations requirement and he will be deemed to have had constructive receipt at the time of attempted delivery. However, in this case, the court noted that the check sender specifically informed the taxpayer on a prior occasion that the check would be arriving approximately two months later than it actually did. The taxpayer had no notice to expect that the check would be delivered; therefore she could not have made a decision to be unavailable to take receipt. [3] The court held that this lack of notice, under the circumstances, meant that she faced substantial limitations on the availability of the funds and that they were not constructively received during the first tax year. [3]

History

The Tax Court had previously addressed this issue in Hornung v. Commissioner . [4] Paul Hornung, a football player for the Green Bay Packers, won a Corvette as a prize on December 31, 1961, for his performance in the 1961 NFL Championship Game. [4] The game was played in Green Bay, Wisconsin, the car was kept at a dealership in New York City, and Hornung did not retrieve the car until January 3, 1962. [4] The court decided that Hornung had not constructively received the car (income) in 1961 because, under the circumstances, it would have been unreasonable to expect him to retrieve the car on the day he won it. [4]

The Tax Court also addressed constructive receipt in two cases, both entitled Veit v. Commissioner . [5] [6] In Veit I, as part of redoing his employment contract, the taxpayer agreed to defer receiving a bonus that he was owed until the next year. [5] The Tax Court upheld the agreement over the IRS's protest because it was the result of an arm's length business transaction, not a sham to evade paying taxes for a year. [7] Indeed, the deferral was requested by the taxpayer's employer. [5] In Veit II, the Tax Court upheld a subsequent agreement by which the taxpayer would receive five equal payments over the course of five years, rather than the one lump-sum payment previously agreed-upon. [6] Again, the IRS objected to the deferral, and again, the Tax Court found for the taxpayer. [6] The deferral was requested by the employer, and the full amount of the bonus was never "unqualifiedly subject to [the taxpayer's] demand or withdrawal." [6]

Impact

The doctrine of constructive receipt is often used in combination with the doctrine of cash equivalence in order to determine the timing of receipt of income items. A constructive receipt issue arises when the taxpayer has not actually received the income, and the issue is whether the income is substantially available to the taxpayer such that receipt will occur for tax timing purposes. A cash equivalence issue occurs when a taxpayer receives a payment as some sort of promise to pay, and the issue is whether the promise is sufficiently definite as to be considered equivalent to receipt of cash income.

Related Research Articles

For households and individuals, gross income is the sum of all wages, salaries, profits, interest payments, rents, and other forms of earnings, before any deductions or taxes. It is opposed to net income, defined as the gross income minus taxes and other deductions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Income tax in the United States</span> Form of taxation in the United States

The United States federal government and most state governments impose an income tax. They are determined by applying a tax rate, which may increase as income increases, to taxable income, which is the total income less allowable deductions. Income is broadly defined. Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and trusts may be taxable on undistributed income. Partnerships are not taxed, but their partners are taxed on their shares of partnership income. Residents and citizens are taxed on worldwide income, while nonresidents are taxed only on income within the jurisdiction. Several types of credits reduce tax, and some types of credits may exceed tax before credits. An Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) applies at the federal and some state levels.

A structured sale or structured installment sale, is a special type of installment sale pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code. In an installment sale, the seller defers recognition of gain on the sale of a business or real estate to the tax year in which the related sale proceeds are received. In a structured sale, the seller is able to pay U.S. Federal income tax over time while having the seller's right to receive those payments guaranteed by a high credit quality alternate obligor. This obligor assumes the buyer's periodic payment obligation. Transactions can be arranged for amounts as small as $100,000.

Under Section 1031 of the United States Internal Revenue Code, a taxpayer may defer recognition of capital gains and related federal income tax liability on the exchange of certain types of property, a process known as a 1031 exchange. In 1979, this treatment was expanded by the courts to include non-simultaneous sale and purchase of real estate, a process sometimes called a Starker exchange.

Taxpayers in the United States may have tax consequences when debt is cancelled. This is commonly known as cancellation-of-debt (COD) income. According to the Internal Revenue Code, the discharge of indebtedness must be included in a taxpayer's gross income. There are exceptions to this rule, however, so a careful examination of one's COD income is important to determine any potential tax consequences.

<i>Hornung v. Commissioner</i> United States Tax Court case

Hornung v. Commissioner is a case heard by the United States Tax Court in 1967.

In United States income tax law, an installment sale is generally a "disposition of property where at least 1 loan payment is to be received after the close of the taxable year in which the disposition occurs." The term "installment sale" does not include, however, a "dealer disposition" or, generally, a sale of inventory. The installment method of accounting provides an exception to the general principles of income recognition by allowing a taxpayer to defer the inclusion of income of amounts that are to be received from the disposition of certain types of property until payment in cash or cash equivalents is received. The installment method defers the recognition of income when compared with both the cash and accrual methods of accounting. Under the cash method, the taxpayer would recognize the income when it is received, including the entire sum paid in the form of a negotiable note. The deferral advantages of the installment method are the most pronounced when comparing to the accrual method, under which a taxpayer must recognize income as soon as he or she has a right to the income.

A like-kind exchange under United States tax law, also known as a 1031 exchange, is a transaction or series of transactions that allows for the disposal of an asset and the acquisition of another replacement asset without generating a current tax liability from the sale of the first asset. A like-kind exchange can involve the exchange of one business for another business, one real estate investment property for another real estate investment property, livestock for qualifying livestock, and exchanges of other qualifying assets. Like-kind exchanges have been characterized as tax breaks or "tax loopholes".

The Doctrine of Cash Equivalence states that the U.S. Federal income tax law treats certain non-cash payment transactions like cash payment transactions for federal income tax purposes. The doctrine is used most often for deciding when cash method taxpayers are to include certain non-cash income items. Another doctrine often used when trying to determine the timing of the inclusion of income is the constructive receipt doctrine.

<i>Cowden v. Commissioner</i>

Cowden v. Commissioner, 289 F.2d 20, outlined the factors used to determine whether something received is a cash equivalent, in other words, whether something received is taxable when it was received or when it was assigned. The court observed two main doctrines in determining when something is taxable. The court relied on the doctrines of constructive receipt and cash equivalence while reiterating that substance rather than form should control income tax laws.

Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Company, 493 U.S. 203 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court addressed whether customer deposits constituted taxable income to a public utility company.

<i>Grynberg v. Commissioner</i> 1984 United States Tax Court case

Grynberg v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 255 (1984) was a case in which the United States Tax Court held that one taxpayer's prepaid business expenses were not ordinary and necessary expenses of the years in which they were made, and therefore the prepayments were not tax deductible. Taxpayers in the United States often seek to maximize their income and decrease their tax liability by prepaying deductible expenses and taking a deduction earlier rather than in a later tax year.

<i>Veit v. Commissioner</i>

The United States Tax Court decided two cases, both titled Veit v. Commissioner, in 1947 and 1949. These cases deal with the doctrine of constructive receipt. In both cases, the taxpayer was an executive vice president of a corporation. He was entitled to a fixed salary plus a bonus of 10% of the corporation's profits for the years 1939 and 1940, with the bonus to be paid in 1941. However, his contract was revised in November 1940 to provide that the bonus from the 1939 profits would be paid in 1941, and the bonus from the 1940 profits would be paid in 1942.

Schlude v. Commissioner, 372 U.S. 128 (1963), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that, under the accrual method, taxpayers must include as income in a particular year advance payments by way of cash, negotiable notes, and contract installments falling due but remaining unpaid during that year. In doing so, the Court tossed aside the matching principle in favor of the earlier-of test.

<i>Artnell Company v. Commissioner</i>

Artnell Company v. Commissioner, 400 F.2d 981 is a decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in which the court, distinguishing from the holding in Schlude v. Commissioner, held that accrual method taxpayers are not required to include prepayments in gross income when there is certainty as to when performance would occur.

<i>Davis v. Commissioner</i> (constructive receipt)

Davis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1978-12 (1978), was a case in which the United States Tax Court held that in order to have constructive receipt, a taxpayer must have notice of the attempt to transfer funds to the taxpayer.

<i>Warren Jones Co. v. Commissioner</i>

Warren Jones Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 524 F.2d 788 was a taxation decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In the United States, the question whether any compensation plan is qualified or non-qualified is primarily a question of taxation under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Any business prefers to deduct its expenses from its income, which will reduce the income subject to taxation. Expenses which are deductible ("qualified") have satisfied tests required by the IRC. Expenses which do not satisfy those tests ("non-qualified") are not deductible; even though the business has incurred the expense, the amount of that expenditure remains as part of taxable income. In most situations, any business will attempt to satisfy the requirements so that its expenditures are deductible business expenses.

<i>Amend v. Commissioner</i> American tax court decision

Amend v. Commissioner, 13 T.C. 178 is a United States Tax Court decision concerning the timing of the realization of gains.

A monetized installment sale is a special type of installment sale whereby a seller of appreciated assets attempts to defer U.S. Federal income tax liability over a period of years while currently receiving cash or other liquid assets via a monetization transaction, such as a loan.

References

  1. ↑ Samuel A. Donaldson, Federal Income Taxation of Individuals: Cases, Problems and Materials, 353 (2nd Ed. 2007).
  2. 1 2 Treas. Reg. § 1.451-2(a).
  3. 1 2 3 4 Davis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1978-12.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Hornung v. Commissioner , 47T.C.428 (1967).
  5. 1 2 3 Veit v. Commissioner , 8T.C.809 (1947).
  6. 1 2 3 4 Veit v. Commissioner , 8T.C.M.919 (1949).
  7. ↑ Veit I, 8 T.C. 809. See also Amend v. Commissioner , 13T.C.178 (T.C.1949).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.