- 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'sPage: 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