- 15 -
have no effect on the remaining partners. The subdivision of
partnership tax items between the two related but independently
taxed entities is thus not a determination “required to be taken
into account for the partnership’s taxable year” as contemplated
by section 6231(a)(3).
5. Conclusion as to Jurisdictional Issue
We hold that the manner in which the distributive share of a
partner in bankruptcy is allocated between the partner in his
individual capacity and his bankruptcy estate is not a
partnership item under the TEFRA procedures. Accordingly, the
merits of such an allocation need not be resolved in a
partnership-level proceeding, but rather may be resolved in a
proceeding at the partner level such as the present one.10
Petitioners’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction shall be
denied.
B. Parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
The parties have each moved for summary judgment with
respect to whether the prepetition partnership losses were to be
reported by Mr. Katz or his bankruptcy estate. Summary judgment
may be granted only if it is demonstrated that no genuine issue
exists as to any material fact and that a decision may be entered
10 We note that our holding is consistent with Gulley v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-190, which addressed in a partner-
level proceeding the proper allocation of partnership losses
between a taxpayer in bankruptcy and the taxpayer’s bankruptcy
estate. The jurisdictional issue, however, was not addressed in
that case.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011