- 17 -
taxes on the 1994 K-1" and “word that cash is estate’s share of
ptnrsp [sic]”. The evidence in the record reflects that, at the
time the grain sales were made in 1994, the grain was owned by
BBP. It was not until the settlement agreement in 1998 that the
grain was labeled as the sole property of Russell. It is well
settled that taxpayers lack the privilege of retroactively
allocating between themselves tax obligations owed to the United
States. United States v. Little, 753 F.2d 1420, 1430 (9th Cir.
1984); Moore v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 1024, 1032 (1978); Curtis
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-344; Jacobellis v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1988-315; see also Pesch v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 100,
128-129 (1982); Bonner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-435 (“an
agreement to which respondent is not a party cannot force him to
collect taxes from someone other than the person upon whom taxes
are imposed” (citing Neeman v. Commissioner, 13 T.C. 397 (1949),
affd. per curiam 200 F.2d 560 (2d Cir. 1952))). On the basis of
the evidence in the record, we hold that the grain sold in 1994
was BBP’s property and that the income from the grain sales was
therefore BBP’s. We now turn to the question of the proper
allocation between the estate and Russell of the partnership
income from the grain sales in 1994.
II. Allocation of Gain From Sale of Grain
A partner must take into account his “distributive share” of
each item of partnership income, gain, loss, deduction, and
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011