- 6 -
to support petitioner’s claim that the Corporation executed that
note as the Partnership’s agent or that the Partnership was
liable for the note’s repayment. Nor is there any evidence of a
written agreement identifying the Corporation as the
Partnership’s agent, or evidence that the Corporation was held
out as the partnership’s agent in dealings with LAG or another
third party. See Commissioner v. Bollinger, 485 U.S. 343, 349-
350 (1988).
Our conclusion is supported by the fact that the
Corporation’s role in the Partnership was to secure funds for the
Partnership and that the record is barren as to any obligation or
effort on the part of the Partnership to secure its own funds.
Nor do we find that any of the Partnership’s partners, except the
Corporation, had such an obligation. In fact, each of the
partners appears to have contributed something unique to the
Partnership. In the case of Messrs. Schadeck and Lettunich, for
example, the former contributed his rights in the underlying
patent, and the latter contributed his legal skills and his
labor. The Corporation expected to, and did, generate and
contribute funds to the Partnership.
We hold that the Partnership was not liable for any part of
the $400,000 owed to LAG and, accordingly, that no partner is
entitled to increase his or its basis in the Partnership on
account of that debt. We have considered all arguments for a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011