- 35 -
amounts collected. Id. at 679. We did not render a holding as
to whether the other partners were relieved of their
responsibility of reporting their distributive shares of the
receivables.
In the instant case, assuming that the claim-of-right
doctrine may apply in this situation, we are not convinced that
Russell acquired the proceeds from the grain sales under a claim
of right and without restriction as to their disposition. The
evidence reflects, and we have found, that the grain sold in 1994
was partnership property. The evidence in the record reflects
that Melvin and Russell allowed each other to withdraw the
profits from the respective activity each brother primarily
conducted, not that each partner was entitled to dispose of the
income from his respective activity without restriction. Russell
testified that there was nothing to prevent Melvin from writing a
check on the BBP farm account and that if Melvin wanted some
money from the farming activity, then Russell would either write
a check or Melvin would sign a note and Russell would pay the
note.22 In the lawsuit, which included the dispute concerning
BBP, the estate sought to enforce its legal rights against
Russell to recover one-half of the farm income. The estate also
originally claimed on its 1994 tax return that it was entitled to
22Additionally, the evidence in the record indicates that a
payment of $73,181.24 was made to Jean Ballantyne on Oct. 18,
1994, from Bottineau for the sale of grain.
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011