- 12 -12
in petitioner's distributive share thereof) until collected;3
consequently, these items do not affect petitioner's capital
account or his basis in the partnership. See Thatcher v.
Commissioner, 61 T.C. 28, 36 (1973), affd. in part and revd. in
part on other grounds 533 F.2d 1114 (9th Cir. 1976); Raich v.
Commissioner, 46 T.C. 604, 610 (1966); Pinson v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1990-234.
To the extent that petitioner may have had other sources which
affected his basis in the partnership (such as capital
contributions), he has failed to prove such basis. Rule 142(a);
Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933). And in this regard, we
are mindful that when the law firm adopted a new partnership
agreement in the late 1980's, partners under the old partnership
agreement (which presumably included petitioner) were bought out by
the partnership, and partners under the new partnership agreement
did not make capital contributions. Additionally, petitioner has
failed to adjust his claimed basis in the partnership by the
distributive share items and cash distributions made by the
partnership that were reported on Schedule K-1 for 1990, or the
deemed distribution of any partnership liabilities assumed by the
3 Petitioner conceded that neither he nor the firm
received or reported any income from accounts receivable and work
in progress during 1990.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011