-10-
as a direct or indirect recipient of self-employment income and
states that it knows conclusively that neither it nor any of its
partners had a member or partner who was an individual.
Petitioner concludes that LTD had no NESE within the meaning of
section 1402(a) and asserts that the Court will conclude
similarly by deciding the question of whether any of the three
individuals was an actual partner of LTD. According to
petitioner, if the Court were to decide that one or more of the
three individuals was in fact a partner of LTD, that decision
would impact the characterization of LTD’s income, the tax
treatment of LTD’s payments to the three individuals, and the
distributive share of income and loss to LTD’s partners.
We disagree with petitioner’s assertions and conclusions.
First, respondent has not determined that any of the three
individuals was or was not actually a partner of LTD. Nor has
respondent taken a position in this case that is inconsistent
with the position taken by LTD on its 1999 return that none of
the three individuals was such a partner. Petitioner is
attempting to raise in this proceeding an issue as to the
identity of LTD’s “actual partners” by requesting that the Court
rule that the three individuals’ status in LTD was as reported;
i.e., that none of the three individuals was a partner of LTD.
We view petitioner’s request that the Court decide this issue as
a request for an advisory opinion, which we decline to render.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011