- 9 -
partners themselves may have had no control over activity of the
partnerships. See Independent Elec. Supply, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 781 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1986), affg. Lahr v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-472; Resnik v. Commissioner, 66
T.C. 74, 81 (1976), affd. per curiam 555 F.2d 634 (7th Cir.
1977). For these reasons, in analyzing the profit objective of,
in particular, limited partnerships, individual actions of
limited partners are not the focus of the analysis.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has
repeatedly accepted the proposition that a partnership level
determination of profit objective is proper. See, e.g., Balboa
Energy Fund 1981 v. Commissioner, 85 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 1996),
affg. in part and revg. in part without published opinion
Osterhout v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-251; Wolf v.
Commissioner, 4 F.3d 709, 713 (9th Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo.
1991-212; Vorsheck v. Commissioner, 933 F.2d 757, 758 (9th Cir.
1991); Polakof v. Commissioner, 820 F.2d 321, 323 (9th Cir.
1987), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-197; Independent Elec. Supply, Inc.
v. Commissioner, supra at 729.
Analyzing under section 183 the profit objective element at
the partnership level is consistent with and follows the general
rule of Federal partnership taxation that the treatment of
partnership income, loss, deduction, or credit be determined at
the partnership level. Sec. 702(b); Podell v. Commissioner, 55
T.C. 429, 433 (1970) (citing Estate of Freeland v. Commissioner,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011