Estate of James R. Tobias, Deceased, V. Pauline Tobias, Executrix, and Verna P. Tobias, Surviving Spouse - Page 11




                                       - 11 -                                         
             equally to the partners, "in accordance with their                       
             respective partnership interests."                                       
                  Darwin and his wife oppose the estate's motion for                  
             summary judgment.  They argue that the partnership                       
             terminated in 1986 and that any income from the business                 
             after 1986, including the subject income, must be allocated              
             entirely to James.  In their cross-motion for summary                    
             judgment, they argue that "the facts and circumstances of                
             the case require allocation of all income and expenses to                
             James pursuant to the partners [sic] interest in the                     
             partnership test.  (Regs. � 1.704-1(b)(1)(I) [sic])."  They              
             further argue that liquidation of the partnership, pursuant              
             to the order of the State court, is evidence that James                  
             bore the economic benefit and burden of the partnership                  
             income.  Accordingly, they argue that all of the income                  
             from the business should be allocated to James, or in                    
             the alternative, that the income should be allocated in                  
             accordance with the partners' capital contributions;                     
             i.e., 99.98 percent to James and .02 percent to Darwin.                  
                  Respondent also opposes the estate's motion for                     
             summary judgment and has filed a cross-motion for summary                
             judgment in which respondent, like the estate, takes the                 
             position that the partnership income at issue in these                   
             cases must be allocated in accordance with the "partner's                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011