- 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