Ingrid Capehart - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
               •    Profits, losses and credits -- after considering                  
                    Mr. Hoyt’s share -- are allocated strictly on the                 
                    basis of capital account.  This means that each                   
                    partner’s interest in the credits, profits and/or                 
                    loss is calculated annually by comparing the                      
                    partner’s capital account to the aggregate of the                 
                    capital accounts of all partners in the                           
                    partnership.                                                      
                    For purposes of computing a partner’s capital                     
                    account, all partners are entitled to include                     
                    their share of partnership debt for which they                    
                    assumed personal liability, until they liquidate                  
                    their interest in the partnership.                                
               •    Any partner having a capital account below zero                   
                    has a basis in the partnership below zero.                        
               Pursuant to, and in accordance with, the settlement                    
          agreement and our opinion in Shorthorn Genetic Engg. 1982-2, Ltd.           
          v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-515, the capital account of                
          petitioner and Mr. Capehart was recomputed, and computational               
          adjustments were made to the distributive shares of Hoyt                    
          partnership losses claimed by petitioner and Mr. Capehart,                  
          resulting in deficiencies for each of the years at issue.  The              
          adjustments were primarily attributable to the Hoyt                         
          organization’s having sold more cattle to the various Hoyt                  
          limited partnerships than it actually owned, see id., having                
          overvalued some of the cattle sold to the Hoyt limited                      
          partnership, see Mora v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 279, 292 (2001),            
          and having failed to properly account for income generated by the           
          sale of calves in calculating partnership losses, see Bales v.              
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-568.                                          






Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011