Estate of Melvin W. Ballantyne, Deceased, Jean S. Ballantyne, Independent Executrix, and Jean S. Ballantyne - Page 31




                                       - 31 -                                         
          that Melvin and Russell agreed to report all items of BBP equally           
          for Federal income tax purposes.  The brothers adhered to this              
          agreement throughout the existence of the partnership, and the              
          evidence in the record reflects that neither brother objected to            
          the arrangement.  There is no evidence to indicate that either              
          Melvin or Russell was attempting to divide profits and apportion            
          losses solely to avoid undesirable tax consequences.  Mr.                   
          Feldmann, who regularly prepared BBP’s partnership returns as               
          well as Melvin’s and Russell’s individual returns, testified that           
          it was his understanding that Melvin and Russell had an oral                
          agreement that they were equal partners in BBP and they each had            
          50-percent distributive shares.  After considering all the facts            
          and circumstances relating to the economic arrangement of Melvin            
          and Russell, including the four factors listed in section 1.704-            
          1(b)(3)(ii), Income Tax Regs., we conclude that each partner had            
          a 50-percent interest in BBP.  Accordingly, the gain from the               
          sale of grain in 1994 must be allocated equally between the                 
          estate and Russell.                                                         
               C.   Whether the Estate Can Avoid Reporting Grain Sales                
               Income in 1994 If Russell Received the Entire Grain Sales              
               Income Under a Claim of Right                                          
               The estate argues that all the gain from the sale of grain             
          in 1994 is attributable to Russell because he received it under a           
          claim of right and without any restriction on his right to                  
          dispose of the income.  The estate cites Estate of Kahr v.                  






Page:  Previous  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011