Edward D. Lang and Sharon A. Lang - Page 9




                                         - 9 -                                          
          partners in DRD after 1989 because petitioner intended their                  
          partnership to cease in 1989.  We disagree.                                   
               A partnership terminates for Federal tax purposes if (1) no              
          part of any business, financial operation, or venture of the                  
          partnership continues to be carried on by any of its partners in              
          a partnership; or (2) within a 12-month period there is a sale or             
          exchange of 50 percent or more of the total interest in                       
          partnership capital and profits.  See sec. 708(b)(1).  Neither of             
          these requirements was met during the years in issue.  To                     
          withdraw as a partner under Texas law, a partner must notify the              
          partnership of his or her intent to withdraw, or another event of             
          withdrawal (e.g., expulsion, death, or bankruptcy) must occur.                
          See Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6132b, sec. 6.01 (Vernon                   
          1990).  Petitioners do not contend that any of these things                   
          occurred during the years in issue.  Thus, we conclude that                   
          petitioner was a partner in DRD during the years in issue.4                   




               4  Respondent offered the settlement agreement for                       
          petitioners’ suit against Trisch (see par. I-F, above) into                   
          evidence to show that petitioner and Trisch were partners during              
          the years in issue.  At trial, we ruled that it was not                       
          admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 408 because it was offered to show             
          the validity of petitioner’s representation in his suit against               
          Trisch that they were partners during the years in issue.                     
          Respondent’s request that we admit the settlement agreement is                
          moot because we have concluded that petitioner and Trisch were                
          partners in the years in issue based on other evidence in the                 
          record.                                                                       






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011