Dick Adams <rdadams[at]smart.net> wrote:
- quote -


Stu

Moderator: ROTFLMAO

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -


Hope you win some cash prizes at the beer competition.
If so, you know where to come for tax help.

ChEAr$,
Harlan

Moderator: See post "Beer competition and taxes"

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

DICK and HARLAN: (And any other interested parties)

You will no doubt be delighted and excited to learn that,
beginning on September 19, the NYTimes.com will charge
$49.95 per annum for Web access to the infamous Op-Ed
columns and to selected other tasty items. News articles
will remain free If you hurry, there is a $39.95 special
introductory price for the first year.

Here are the details:
http://nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/...letter.html?hp

Enjoy!

Bill

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Harlan Lunsford wrote:
- quote -

Keep in mind that I am absolutely not bound by precedent <G
<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

Not all are. Some states have advertised that people who
want to play the same numbers each week can sign up (either
prepay or via credit card, I don't know the details) and get
their tickets each game automagically. I don't know if
those systems will also pay off winners automagically.

- quote -

He might do that in hopes the lottery would relent and let
him have some money.

Seth

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Harlan Lunsford <hlunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

I noted the case only from the standpoint that fairness or
ability to pay is not the issue. I did not bring it up to
argue the issue of constructive receipt.

But from that standpoint, in your case the reason the
taxpayer didn't know was due to his own fault - he never got
around to looking at the ticket. From a legal standpoint
that would likely give rise to constructive receipt.

If he was given the wrong ticket (or no ticket at all) and
it was mailed to him several months later, I'd agree that
there would be no constructive receipt because his inability
to receive payment was in fact beyond his control due to
factors also not under his control.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

But, since lottery tickets are sold anonymously, the only
way that he could be taxed is if he came forward and
publicly identified himself as the idiot who lost the
winning ticket.

Doing that would qualify him for a successful insanity plea. <g
<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

OHMYGAWD!!!! (like Mr Bill of SNL: "oh ...nooooooooooooo!!!"

Hmm, let's see now. "The exception proves the rule."

- quote -

Thanks for sticking up for me, Dick.

ChEAr$,
Harlan

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

Not a similar example, Stu. In my case the "winner" never
even know he was a winner, nor did anybody else. Thus how
would IRS know that he was the winner?

In your example (a really old case btw), the thief had
constructive and actual receipt of the dough, therefore
taxable.

ChEAr$,
Harlan

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Harlan Lunsford <hlunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

Based on the definition of negotiable instrument in the
Uniform Commercial Code, the only reason it's not is that
payment isn't due unless the ticket is a winner.

Aside from that, once the drawing is made a lottery ticket
has all the incidents of a negotiable instrument.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Harlan Lunsford <hlunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

I'd say yes. Fairness or ability to pay does not determine
whether tax should be imposed. I remember a case in which a
guy stole something like $8 million toward the end of the
year. He was captured and the money returned in the next
year. The IRS imposed a huge tax on him in the year of the
theft, but allowed him an offsetting deduction the following
year - when he was sitting in jail not earning any money at
all.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Harlan Lunsford <hlunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:

- quote -

Apparently you agree with the New York Times about SOMETHING
anyway!

Stu ;-)

Moderator:
Please do not troll integrity sensitive participants with
references to the rag sheet of the Liberal Empire.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

Not the same. A lottery ticket is not like a check; it is
not a negotiable instrument; right?

ChEAr$,
Harlan

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote:

- quote -

This does seem to open murky areas. You receive a check on
December 31 and deposit it in your bank that same day. But
your bank, like all others, delays your ability to withdraw
the funds represented by the check for a couple to a few
days to make sure that the check is good. Seems you could
claim you did not receive the funds until early January when
your bank makes them available.

--
Vic Roberts
Replace xxx with vdr in e-mail address.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

You are trying to apply logic to a tax matter.

If similar logic mattered, I could argue that that check I
received in December could not be cashed until it was
presented to a bank and deemed valid, which did not happen
until January. And what if I decided to hold the check as a
souvenir for a while before cashing it. I don't think my
logic would be relevant because it conflicts with the rules,
and not because it is illogical.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

JD N wrote:

- quote -

And thank YOU for generating a thought provoking question
for us.

While I almost always say don't rely on the barber (or
lottery officials) for tax advice, since their answer
conincides with mine, we must be right.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Harlan Lunsford <hlunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

That's like saying that you don't have the right to the
money from a check until you present it to the bank and they
verify the signature. To the extent you could have received
money before the end of the year but did not because you
delayed presenting your ticket, it seems to me that you've
constructively received.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

So, then... hmmm... the "winner" bought the winning
ticket for 1.8 million$, it was the only winner, but he
forgot about it, lost the ticket and therefore couldn't
claim the prize, neither this year nor next. Does
constructive received mean he's to be taxed on the 1.8
million$?

ChEAr$,
Harlan

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Hello everyone,

I believe this issue was originated form my original email to OP :-)

Anyways, I did not win the Grand Prize (weeping) although I
did win 100K for almost getting all 6 numbers.

Since I've already won & would really like to cash out
before the 180 days (FEB '06), I seem to be trapped with
this issue of constructive receipt. Hence, my email
concerning this matter.

I did call the IRS, but they did not give me an answer, yet!
As to the Lottery Corporate office, a Rep. says that isn't
an issue & that I should cash out whenever I want as long as
it is within the 180 days. I mentioned constructive receipt
& they say it won't matter as other folks have done the same
thing in the past -- which they justified it by issuing a
'06 W-2G(?).

Btw, thank you for all your responses!

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Lanny K Williams CPA <lanny[at]expatriatetax.net> wrote:
- quote -

So if the lottery rule is: "When you present the ticket, you
must then elect whether to take cash or annuity. Either
way, you receive money (starting) one week later." then
there's no constructive receipt if the winner chooses to
hold the ticket, because there was no time at which he
_could have received_ the money?

If you say "but he could have made the election December 15"
then why aren't I taxed on the profit from the sale of a
book I _could have_ sold last year (but didn't)?

Seth

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >