- 15 -
Trisch’s relationship to petitioner does not suggest that
Trisch’s testimony would favor petitioner. Respondent listed
Trisch as a witness on the pretrial memorandum submitted to the
Court; petitioners did not. Neither party called Trisch to
testify. We infer that Trisch was equally available to both
parties, and we do not apply the adverse inference rule.
6. Conclusion
We conclude that Trisch’s engineering income was not income
of the DRD partnership in the years in issue.5
C. Whether Real Estate Rental Income Earned Doing Business as
DRD From 1989 Through 1993 Was Outside the Scope of the
Partnership
Petitioners contend that any DRD real estate rental income
or loss in the years in issue was not partnership income because
Trisch owned the properties that generated rental income or loss
during the years in issue. We disagree.
Trisch bought mobile homes in New Mexico and Texas in DRD’s
name. Real property acquired in the name of the partnership is
partnership property. See Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6132b,
sec. 2.05(a)(1) (West 1990). DRD was formed to own rental real
property. DRD did not terminate for Federal tax purposes before
Trisch acquired that property. See par. II-A, above. Income
earned within the scope of a partnership is partnership income.
5 For similar reasons, we conclude that farming was not a
DRD activity.
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