Frank v. Commissioner

22 T.C. 945 (1954)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Frank v. Commissioner

United States Tax Court
22 T.C. 945 (1954)

CS

Facts

In July 1946, Joseph Frank (plaintiff) resigned as an employee of the Interstate Folding Box Company (Interstate). Pursuant to agreements between Frank and Interstate, Frank was entitled to a bonus for Interstate’s fiscal year ending July 31, 1946, and Interstate was to purchase Frank’s shares of Interstate stock. The amounts to be paid by Interstate to Frank for his fiscal 1946 bonus and his shares of Interstate stock were negotiated over a period of several months, with the parties agreeing in December 1946 that Frank would receive $50,641.30 in settlement of all his claims against Interstate. Payment was made by three checks: (1) a check dated December 28, 1946, in the amount of $18,701.02, which bore a notation that it was for the purchase of Frank’s shares of Interstate stock; (2) a check dated December 28, 1946, in the amount of $15,313,85, which bore a notation that it was for Frank’s fiscal 1946 bonus of $18,905.99, less tax withholdings of $3,592.14; and (3) a check dated January 3, 1947, for $10,557.78, which bore a notation that it constituted payment of all of Frank’s remaining claims of $13,034.29, less tax withholdings of $2,476.51. Although Interstate had sufficient funds in its bank account to issue all three checks on December 28, 1946—and no business reason for not doing so—it delayed issuing the third check until January 3, 1947, at the behest of Frank’s counsel. Frank included the payments he received from the first two checks on his 1946 federal income tax return and the payment from the third on his 1947 return. The commissioner of internal revenue (commissioner) (defendant) determined that the third payment was constructively received by Frank in 1946 and should have been reported on Frank’s return for that year instead of 1947. Frank was assessed a deficiency for 1946, which he challenged in the United States Tax Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Turner, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership