- 375 -
I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction This Court has jurisdiction to
determine its own jurisdiction. See Normac, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 146 (1988). The jurisdictional
question presented here turns on whether the bonus payments, in
fact, were income of Kanter's law firm partnership.
Kanter and his law partner, Calvin Eisenberg, testified
that, pursuant to a longstanding practice existing at their law
firm, investments in Delta and Alpha were voluntary and were made
by a law firm member, a member's immediate family, and/or the
members' entities on an entirely non-law-firm-partnership basis.
They stated that not all of the law firm members participated in
Delta and Alpha. They further stated that the law firm
partnership did not have any interest or rights to the income
Delta and Alpha would earn from their respective loans to
Shelburne and Century.
Delta's and Alpha's respective interim loans to Shelburne
and Century were not investment activities of Kanter's law firm
partnership. The law firm members who participated in these
ventures had no intention to invest on their law firm's behalf.
More importantly, the alleged diversions of funds from Shelburne
and Century were not joint business endeavors of the law firm
partnership's partners, as only those members of the law firm
and/or their families who invested in Delta and Alpha would
benefit from the "bonus payments". We conclude that the "bonus"
Page: Previous 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011