- 30 -
informing us that neither party desired an evidentiary hearing. We
then ordered the parties to file briefs addressing the issues on
remand with appropriate computations in support of their respective
positions.
It is apparent that respondent’s concession effectively
removes the basis for our original decision; namely, that a deemed
liquidation of IHCL would not trigger a minimum gain chargeback.
Petitioner now asserts that respondent’s concession requires a
determination in petitioner’s favor. Petitioner maintains that a
comparative liquidation of IHCL in 1990 and in 1991 would produce
minimum gain chargebacks to THEI in both years, which chargebacks
would be sufficient to eliminate THEI’s negative capital account.
The result is that both partners would have positive capital
accounts. Accordingly, petitioner maintains, the requirement that
liquidation proceeds be paid in accordance with positive capital
accounts shows that its allocations reflect the partners’ economic
interests in the partnership. Respondent, however, contends that,
notwithstanding his concession, our original decision was correct,
based upon alternative evidentiary and legal arguments.
Initially, in his brief on remand, respondent maintains that
petitioner has failed to substantiate the amounts of the
partnership minimum gains at issue. We disagree. We reviewed this
matter thoroughly during the trial of this case and see no reason
to revisit this issue. Petitioner produced its accountant’s work
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011