Mary Rosenberg & David Rosenberg, Co-Executors of the Est. of Dan Rosenberg, & Mary Rosenberg v. United States, 422 F.2d 341 (8th Cir. 1970). · Go Syfert
Mary Rosenberg & David Rosenberg, Co-Executors of the Est. of Dan Rosenberg, & Mary Rosenberg v. United States, 422 F.2d 341 (8th Cir. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Thomas v. Board of Education of the Plum Bayou-Tucker School District No. 1 (ca8, 1972-03-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. Board of Education of the Plum Bayou-Tucker School District No. 1
8th Cir. · 1972 · confidence medium
Rosenburg v. United States, 422 F.2d 341, 342 (C.A.8, 1970).
cited Cited as authority (rule) 4 Fair empl.prac.cas. 591, 4 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7745 Lois Thomas v. The Board of Education of the Plum Bayou-Tucker School District No. 1, Wright, Arkansas
8th Cir. · 1972 · confidence medium
Rosenburg v. United States, 422 F.2d 341, 342 (C.A.8, 1970).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Arkansas Education Association v. Board of Education of the Portland, Arkansas School District, Arkansas Education Association v. Board of Education of the Portland, Arkansas School District, Cross-Appellants
8th Cir. · 1971 · confidence medium
Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Rosenberg v. United States, 422 F.2d 341, 342 (8th Cir. 1970).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Arkansas Education Ass'n v. Board of Education of the Portland, Arkansas School District
8th Cir. · 1971 · confidence medium
Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Rosenberg v. United States, 422 F.2d 341, 342 (8th Cir. 1970).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mary ROSENBERG and David Rosenberg, Co-Executors of the Estate of Dan Rosenberg, and Mary Rosenberg, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
19707.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Feb 25, 1970.
422 F.2d 341
Victor Packman, Clayton, Mo., for appellants., William S. Estabrook, III, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee; Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks and Thomas L. Stapleton, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Daniel Bartlett, Jr., U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., and Daniel R. O’Neill, Asst. U. S. Atty., were with him on the brief.
Gibson, Lay, Bright.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The central issue in this case presents a factual question: whether commissions not actually drawn upon until the year after they were earned constitute constructively received income in the year in which they were earned. Although the doctrine of constructive receipt is to be sparingly applied, its application is proper if the commissions were available to the taxpayer in the year earned. 26 C.F.R. § 1.451-2 (1969). In the instant case, [1] availability turns on whether the taxpayer had a[*342] legal right to make withdrawals against his commissions in the year earned and on whether the taxpayer’s employer was financially able to pay the commissions owed the taxpayer.

The responsibility in a non-jury case for resolving factual questions rests with the district court and the scope of the appellate review is limited to whether the findings of the trial court are clearly erroneous. Pendergrass v. New York Life Ins. Co., 181 F.2d 136, 137-138 (8th Cir. 1950). Upon a reading of the record, we think that the District Court’s determination that the commissions were constructively received by the taxpayer is fully warranted by the evidence and therefore not clearly erroneous. We, therefore, affirm the District Court’s decision on the basis of Chief Judge Harper’s opinion. Rosenberg v. United States, 295 F.Supp. 820 (E.D.Mo.1969).

1

. Employer, Bristol Manufacturing Company, utilized an accrual basis of accounting and deducted the commissions earned by employee, David Rosenberg, in the year earned, though an accounting was rendered in February on the past year and varying balances of commissions earned but not paid would be carried over each year. The employee’s return was prepared on a cash basis and only commissions actually received were reported as income. A substantial part of these balances would be drawn down by the taxpayer in January of each year.