- 13 -
established until a settlement was reached during the last of the
3 years in issue. Id. at 71. We rejected the taxpayer’s
argument that taxation of his distributive share should be
postponed on that account, and we noted that the purpose of his
suit against his partner was to claim one-half of the profits and
that the settlement seemed to have decided that question. Id. at
74. We held that the taxpayer’s distributive share of the
partnership profits had to be included in his income for the
years in which those profits were earned by the partnership.
Id.; see also First Mechs. Bank v. Commissioner, supra at 279
(holding the taxpayer liable for the higher amount of his
distributive share for the tax year in issue despite the fact
that the taxpayer had settled for a lesser amount in a later year
in order to end protracted litigation); Beck Chem. Equip. Corp.
v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. 840, 855 (1957) (holding that the
principles of scienter and actual receipt have no application to
the issue of whether partners are to be charged with their
distributive shares and rejecting the taxpayer’s argument that a
dispute with his partner made the calculation of his distributive
share impossible and that the amounts were not established until
a settlement was reached in a later year); Klein v. Commissioner,
25 T.C. 1045 (1956) (rejecting the taxpayer’s argument that a
dispute between the taxpayer and his partner over his
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011