- 2 - are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Neither party has requested a hearing on petitioners' motion. Accordingly, we rule on petitioners' motion based on the parties' submissions and the record in the instant case as a whole. We incorporate by reference herein the portions of our opinion on the merits in the instant case, Sicard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-173, that are relevant to our disposition of the motion. On April 10, 1996, we issued our opinion in Sicard, in which we held that a payment received by petitioner Leon Sicard (petitioner) during 1987 from the White-Sicard Co. partnership (partnership), of which he was a partner, was a guaranteed payment within the meaning of section 707(c) and was therefore includable in his income during the years that it was accrued by the partnership.1 The years during which the guaranteed payment was accrued by the partnership were closed at the time the notice of deficiency in the instant case was issued to petitioners, and we did not sustain respondent's determination that the payment was includable in income for the year during which it was received. The payment was not included in petitioner's income 1 The partnership used the accrual method of accounting, while petitioner used the cash method. A guaranteed payment is includable in a partner's income for the partner's taxable year during which the payment is taken into account pursuant to the partnership's method of accounting. Pratt v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 203, 212-214 (1975), affd. in part and revd. in part on another issue 550 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1977).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011