Marica Chama - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         

          Sheridan property and the purchase of the Montrose and Pratt                
          properties.  Mr. Mader prepared the Schedules K-1, Partner’s                
          Share of Income, Credits, Deductions, Etc., reflecting each                 
          partner’s distributive share of that gain.  Petitioner’s Schedule           
          K-1 reflected a gain in the amount of $61,983.                              
               Petitioner did not report the $61,983 on her Federal income            
          tax return for 1993.  Respondent determined, inter alia, that               
          petitioner should have reported the $61,983 as a capital gain               
          pursuant to section 61(a)(13).                                              
               Section 702(c) provides that in any case where it is                   
          necessary to determine the gross income of a partner for purposes           
          of this title, such amount shall include his distributive share             
          of the gross income of the partnership.  Petitioner states that             
          she did not receive a cash distribution but that is irrelevant              
          under the statute.  Each partner is taxable upon his or her                 
          distributive share of the partnership profits, whether or not               
          distributed.  Sec. 702; sec. 1.702-1(a), Income Tax Regs.  Or to            
          put it another way, a partner is taxable on his or her                      
          distributive or proportionate shares of partnership income,                 
          irrespective of whether that income is actually distributed to              
          him or her.  United States v. Basye, 410 U.S. 441, 447-8, 454               
          (1973); Cipparone v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-234.  In the             
          instant case, it appears that the Partnership reinvested                    
          petitioner’s share of the gain.                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011