Estate of Jack L. Bradley, Deceased, John S. Bradley, Successor Executor, C.T.A. - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         
          single factor, id. at 127, but to whether the combination of                
          factors and characteristics of the transaction rises to the level           
          of an "other similar arrangement" with the effect of protecting             
          decedent against risk.                                                      
               Respondent first stresses the nonrecourse nature of the                
          indebtedness involved in the transaction.  In Hambrose Leasing v.           
          Commissioner, 99 T.C. at 301, 303, 312, we decided that, for                
          purposes of any subsequent litigation involving this partnership,           
          the partnership's indebtedness involved in the purchase of both             
          the initial and additional equipment was nonrecourse.9  Where               
          decedent is personally liable for his share of partnership debt             
          by virtue of his assumption of the nonrecourse liability, the               
          presence of that same nonrecourse liability cannot also be said             
          to be a factor insulating him from risk.  See Hayes v.                      
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-151; Wag-A-Bag Inc. v.                        
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-581, and cases cited therein.                 




               9  Petitioner insists we must not carry over the findings              
          from one case into another.  However, any affected items                    
          proceeding will necessarily involve determinations made at the              
          partnership level.  Sec. 6231(a)(5); see Brookes v. Commissioner,           
          108 T.C. 1 (1997); Kafka & Cavanagh, 1 Litigation of Federal                
          Civil Tax Controversies par. 9.04[1], at p. 9-5 (2d ed. 1997).              
          To that extent, petitioner's argument that it ought not be bound            
          by our findings in a "separate" proceeding is without merit.                
               Petitioner also presents argument as to why res judicata by            
          Hayes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-151 (a case dealing with a           
          similar partnership organized by Hambrose and Charterhouse)                 
          should not apply in this case.  Respondent has not asserted res             
          judicata, and we do not apply it.                                           




Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011