- 13 - to include 50 percent of the income of the partnership is inconsistent with respondent's position that all partnership income should be allocated to James. The memorandum in support of respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment states: "If and to the extent the respondent's motion is granted, the respondent will stipulate to a decision reducing Darwin's income accordingly." The estate makes three arguments in opposition to the cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Darwin and respondent and in support of its position that respondent erred by allocating to James all of the partnership income for the years in issue. First, the estate reiterates its position that the income of the partnership for the years in question must be allocated in accordance with the "partner's interest in the partnership." According to the estate: "The state court expressly found in considering all relevant facts and circumstances that both James and Darwin owned a 50 percent partnership interest in the business." On that basis, the estate contends that the income of the partnership should be allocated to the partners equally. Second, the estate argues, in the alternative, that such a 50-50 income allocation has substantial economicPage: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011