wrote:

- quote -

Which, given the history of this particular department is a
pretty good assumption. I think in over 50 years of being in
business, they haven't stopped one that I know of. I don't
think they have even bothered to send anything out
officially accepting any earlier submissions for at least
that time.

Can't blame for trying (g).

-- "Politics should be limited in its scope to war, protection
of property, and the occasional precautionary beheading of a
member of the ruling class."
-P.J. O'Rourke

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Kurt Ullman wrote:

- quote -

I don't see where constructive receipt comes into play at
all in this fact pattern--rather, you have *actual* receipt
which you want to ignore by arguing it's a contingent right
to receive the income.

Note that if the reverse were true (everything was done, but
the check wasn't received until after the effective date),
you'd get the rate via what's effectively the installment
sale rules.

Obviously, it might be useful to research any cases that
have occurred when there were other mid-year effective dates
for such bills.

You might want to look at the case of Ferydoun Ahadpour, et
ux. v. Commissioner, TC Memo 1999-9, which was a case where
the Tax Court held that a deposit was not received under a
claim of right (and therefore not includable in income at
the time received) in a very specific fact pattern. As I
recall your facts, this may be a difficult fit <grin> , but
you might be able to argue for it by analogy. The problem
will be if the court were to find in this case that the
Justice Department approval was a "mere formality" that
didn't really represent any but the most contingent risk of
repayment of the amount in question.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

To review. A sub-S corp that I own a piece of signed an
agreement on 5-1 that resulted in a cap gain. The company
got the check on 5-5 and the new rates for cap gains kicked
in 5-6 (don't remember the exact date except it was the day
after we got the check). The agreement is contingent on DOJ
approval.

So, with the need for DOJ approval, would CR enter into this
in order to not kick in the cap gains until AFTER the lower
rates kicked in (the DOJ is still silent so far)?

So, if CR isn't in effect for the June, how about Sept?

I am only looking for ideas to bounce off my own CPA and
won't hold youse guys to anything.

-- "Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."
-P.J. O'Rourke

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->