J. D. Real Estate Co. v. Commissioner
Opinion
*763 MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
WILES,
The sole issue for decision is whether petitioner, an accrual basis taxpayer, must include in income during its fiscal year ending October 31, 1974, the portion of a real estate commission earned on the sale of an apartment complex, payment of which was deferred until a later taxable year.
*764 FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly.
Petitioner is a corporation whose principal place of business*568 was located in Manchester, Connecticut, at the time the petition was filed. Petitioner is an accrual basis taxpayer operating on a fiscal year ending October 31.
The entire controversy herein involves a $240,000 commission earned by petitioner for negotiating the sale of an apartment complex in Vernon, Connecticut, on October 23, 1974. On October 23, 1974, Sol Lavitt, owner of the Mount Vernon Apartment Complex (hereinafter MVAC), mortgaged the MVAC to Society for Savings for $1,700,000. Immediately thereafter Lavitt sold the MVAC to Mount Vernon Enterprises for $3,610,108.41, subject to Society for Savings' $1,700,000 mortgage. Pursuant to the terms of sale, Lavitt received a purchase money mortgage from Mount Vernon Enterprises securing a note in the principal amount of $3,610,108.41. The $3,610,108.41 note is a nonrecourse, balloon payment obligation. With the exception of two principal payments of $25,000 each, due on October 15, 1987 and October 15, 1988, Mount Vernon Enterprises is only liable for interest payments until October 23, 1989, when the entire principal balance becomes due.
Upon receipt of the note and purchase money mortgage, Lavitt assigned them to H. David*569 Leventhal, Trustee. Under the terms of the assignment agreement, Leventhal agreed to distribute all *3 payments received in the following order of priority: (1) to pay all amounts due under the terms of Lavitt's promissory note in the principal amount of $1,350,000 payable to the order of Society for Savings; 1 (2) to pay all amounts due under the terms of Lavitt's promissory note in the principal amount of $310,000 payable to the order of Robert Satter, Trustee; (3) to pay $3,722 per month jointly to Lavitt and petitioner; 2 and (4) to pay the balance of any payments to John A. DeQuattro, Trustee.
In the event Leventhal foreclosed the property by sale, he agreed to distribute all sale proceeds in the same order of priority with the exception that all costs incurred in protecting the*570 lien or foreclosing the mortgage are to be paid first, and Lavitt and petitioner are to jointly receive a fixed sum of $1,650,108.41.
For negotiating the sale of the MVAC, petitioner received a commission of $240,000 payable $60,000 at closing and $180,000 according to the terms of a commission agreement between Lavitt and petitioner. The commission agreement, concomitantly with the assignment agreement, provides that after payment of the amounts due under Lavitt's $1,350,000 loan from Society for Savings and *4 the $310,000 due to Robert Satter, Trustee, petitioner is to receive an interest in the purchase money mortgage payable as follows: (1) From the interest proceeds of the purchase money mortgage, petitioner is to receive annual interest payments of $10,000 on the outstanding $180,000 commission and, in the event the mortgagor fails to pay the full amount of interest due, petitioner is to receive 10/44ths of the interest payments remaining for Lavitt's account after payment of the two prior interests; (2) from the principal payments of the purchase money mortgage, petitioner is to receive 10/44ths of any payments Lavitt receives up to $180,000; and (3) all of the payments*571 of interest and principal are to be paid only if, as and when they are received by Lavitt under the purchase money mortgage.
On its corporate income tax return (Form 1120) filed for the taxable year ending October 31, 1974, petitioner reported as income $60,000 of the $240,000 real estate commission due from the sale of the MVAC. In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that petitioner must include the $240,000 commission in income during the year it was earned. Accordingly, respondent increased petitioner's taxable income by $180,000.
OPINION
We must determine whether petitioner, an accrual basis taxpayer, must include in income the portion of a real estate commission earned on the sale of an apartment complex, payment of which was deferred until a later taxable year.
*5 Section 451(a) 3 provides that "the amount of any item of gross income shall be included in the gross income for the taxable year in which received by the taxpayer, unless under the method of accounting used in computing taxable income, such amount is to be properly accounted for as of a different period."
An exception to the general rule of inclusion for accrual basis taxpayers exists where such income is of doubtful collectibility.
Respondent's determination is presumptively correct and the taxpayer bears the burden of proof.
Petitioner maintains that payment of the $180,000 deferred portion of the real estate commission due from the sale of the Mount Vernon Apartment Complex was contingent, or of sufficiently reasonable uncertainty, so as to preclude accrual of such item during petitioner's taxable year ending October 31, 1974. The crux of petitioner's argument is that the value of the MVAC securing the nonrecourse purchase money mortgage was less than the value of the first mortgage and other interests prior in right to petitioner, the MVAC generated less*574 rental income than is required to satisfy the mortgage and operating expenses, and therefore petitioner was totally unsecured and its prospects of collecting the deferred portion of the real estate commission was in serious doubt. Respondent maintains that petitioner's right to receive the $240,000 commission was fixed and determinable on October 23, 1974, and that petitioner has failed to show an *7 exception to the general rule of accrual. We agree with the respondent.
Petitioner's right to receive the $240,000 commission was fixed and unconditional when it performed all services in connection with the sale of the MVAC on October 23, 1974, and accrual of the entire $240,000 commission was appropriate at that time. See
Petitioner's attempt*575 to show that the fair market value of the complex was less than the amount of the outstanding mortgages and that the complex could not generate enough income to pay its debts is insufficient to defer accrual. At best, petitioner has shown a mere possibility of default on an obligation which is not sufficient to defer accrual of income that has been earned.
To reflect the foregoing,
Footnotes
1. This $1,350,000 promissory note represents a loan from Society for Savings to Lavitt executed on October 23, 1974, which is separate from the $1,700,000 mortgage on the MVAC. ↩
2. The $3,722 per month third priority interest payable jointly to Lavitt and petitioner was created to pay a portion of the real estate commission due petitioner for its participation in the sale of the MVAC.↩
3. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended.↩
4. For example, if the mortgagor believed the property would substantially appreciate in value, or he desired the depreciation and other tax benefits of continued ownership, then he would be likely to pay off the outstanding mortgage.↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.