- 41 -
for increasing gross income. Indeed, respondent acknowledges on
brief that the distributions in excess of basis theory was not
set forth in the notice of deficiency. The evidence in the
record demonstrates that the adjustment in the notice of
deficiency was based on respondent’s whipsaw position that
Russell should have reported all the grain sales proceeds in
income because the grain was solely Russell’s property, not
partnership property. In the instant case, the determination of
whether the grain sold in 1994 was Russell’s sole property is not
dependent on, and does not require a determination of, the amount
of Russell’s basis in his partnership interest. The evidence
necessary to establish Russell’s basis in his partnership
interest is different from the evidence necessary to establish
that the grain sold in 1994 was solely Russell’s property.
Accordingly, respondent bears the burden of proof on this issue.
Shea v. Commissioner, supra at 197; Wayne Bolt & Nut Co. v.
Commissioner, supra at 507.
Section 731(a) defines the circumstances under which a
partner recognizes gain or loss from partnership distributions.
In the case of a distribution by a partnership to a partner, gain
is recognized only to the extent that any money distributed
exceeds the adjusted basis of a partner’s interest in the
partnership immediately before the distribution. Sec. 731(a)(1);
Jacobson v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 577, 584 (1991), affd. 963 F.2d
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011