Carl Goudas and Marilyn Goudas - Page 35

                                       - 35 -                                         

          Pecaris partnership agreement, petitioner had and continues to              
          have a 25-percent profits and losses interest in the partnership.           
          Thus, 25 percent of Pecaris' gain from its sale of its entire               
          interest in the Mall must be allocated to petitioner under the              
          partnership allocation rules, regardless of what was distributed            
          to him in cash.  United States v. Basye, supra at 453 ("it is               
          axiomatic that each partner must pay taxes on his distributive              
          share of the partnership's income without regard to whether that            
          amount is actually distributed to him"); Curtis v. Commissioner,            
          T.C. Memo. 1995-344 (few principles of partnership taxation are             
          more firmly established than the notion that, no matter the                 
          reason for nondistribution, each partner must pay taxes on his              
          distributive share).                                                        
               Petitioners also argue that any allocation to petitioner of            
          gain from the sale of the Mall would not have "substantial                  
          economic effect" under section 704(b) and the regulations                   
          thereunder.  Petitioner's argument is premised on the conclusion            
          we've already rejected, that the Mall transaction, insofar as               
          petitioner is concerned, amounted to a distribution to him by               
          Pecaris of an undivided interest in the Mall that he contributed            
          to Coastal.  The inclusion of the $700,000 credit in the amount             
          realized by and recognized to Pecaris and distributed by Pecaris            
          to petitioner, supports our conclusion that the allocation of a             
          distributive share of the Pecaris gain to petitioner has                    





Page:  Previous  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011