- 12 - falsified the amended certificate and the subsequent certificate filed on September 2, 1982. Furthermore, the partnership agreement provided that the general partners could admit other limited partners. At the time the amended certificate was filed on July 30, 1982, SLA had title to the film, the film had been released, and SLA was actively advertising the film. At least by that time, SLA had been formed. Petitioners belittle the advertising activities because the checks drawn on the advertising account were not drawn until after September 4, 1982. But, under the advertising agreement, SLA transferred $1,313,000 to the advertising account at the closing of the purchase of the film. Furthermore, most of the invoices paid were for services performed in July and August 1982. We find petitioners’ argument at best unconvincing. Finally, it should be noted that petitioners are attempting to disavow the partnership documents and sworn statements of the general partners on the certificates of limited partnership and the tax return of SLA. Petitioners seem to argue that they should not be bound by these representations of SLA. We disagree. Under general partnership principles one partner is bound by the acts of another. See Friend v. H.A. Friend and Co., 416 F.2d 526, 533 (9th Cir. 1969); Truman v Commissioner, 3 B.T.A. 386, 388 (1926). This is particularly true here where the partnership agreement provided that “management and control * * *Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011