Roberts v. Comm'r
Opinion
*290 Distribution income was constructively received by petitioner in 1997 and was includable in petitioner's income for that year. Judgment entered for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
GERBER, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1997 Federal income tax of $ 9,680 and an accuracy- related penalty under section 6662 of $ 941. 1 After concessions, 2 the sole issue remaining for our consideration is whether petitioner constructively received $ 24,867 of income in the 1997 taxable year.
FINDINGS OF FACT 3
At the time his petition was filed, petitioner, Chris Alan Roberts, resided in Hawthorne, California. On July 10, 1997, petitioner directed*291 to himself a lump-sum distribution of his vested benefits in the Champion Transportation Services Inc. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan (the Plan). Six days later, on July 16, 1997, petitioner was sentenced by a court to confinement in an alcohol rehabilitation center (Center) in Warm Springs, California. Although petitioner was not permitted to leave the Center, he had access to a telephone. Throughout petitioner's rehabilitation period, an acquaintance resided at petitioner's Hawthorne residence.
During August 1997, while petitioner was still admitted in the Center, a $ 19,893.9 4 distribution check was received from the Plan at petitioner's Hawthorne residence. The distribution was received in the form of a cashier's check.
On November 13, 1997, petitioner was released from the Center and concurrently re-confined in the Los Angeles county jail to serve the remainder of his sentence. Petitioner was released from jail in February 1998 and during May of that year he cashed the $ 19,893.90 distribution check. Petitioner did not report the distribution as income on his 1997 Federal income tax return.
*292 OPINION
The question we consider is whether petitioner constructively received the $ 24,867.37 distribution during his 1997 tax year.
Petitioner argues that, despite receipt of the distribution check at his residence during July 1997, he was unable to "apply" or cash it until May 1998 following his release from prison. On that basis, petitioner contends that the 401(k) distribution should not be included in income for 1997. Conversely, respondent argues that petitioner actually or constructively received income based on the receipt of the distribution check at petitioner's residence during July 1997. To prevail, petitioner must show*293 that the distribution should not be recognized in his 1997 income. 5 Rule 142(a).
Income, although not actually reduced to a taxpayer's possession, is constructively received during the taxable year it is (1) credited to a taxpayer's account, (2) set apart for a taxpayer, or (3) otherwise made available to the taxpayer. However, income is not constructively received if the taxpayer's control of the income is subject to substantial limitations or restrictions. See
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2002 T.C. Memo. 281 (Roberts v. Comm'r) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.