Terry Nathan Norman - Page 17

                                       - 16 -                                         
               C.  The Corporation’s Alleged Embezzlement of Partnership              
          Funds                                                                       
               Petitioner contends that the corporation embezzled or                  
          “laundered” partnership funds.  Petitioner also makes vague                 
          allegations of fraud against PTSI, the corporation, Mr. Stern,              
          and other individuals.  As evidence of the alleged wrongdoing,              
          petitioner offers PTSI’s Form 1065 for the taxable year 2002,               
          including the Form K-1 prepared for the corporation, which                  
          indicates the corporation received a distribution of $185,793 in            
          2002.  As we understand his argument, petitioner contends that              
          PTSI improperly made distributions to the corporation while                 
          refusing to make distributions to petitioner.                               
               The agreement provides that “Available Funds shall be                  
          distributed to the Partners pro rata in accordance with their               
          Participating Percentages”.  This language indicates that if one            
          partner receives a distribution, the other partners should also             
          receive pro rata distributions.  The parties agree that                     
          petitioner did not receive a cash distribution from PTSI in 2002.           
          Thus, petitioner argues, the corporation violated the agreement             
          and embezzled funds.  We disagree.                                          
               More than 10 years elapsed between the formation of the                
          partnership and the distribution to the corporation.  There may             
          be a number of reasons why petitioner did not receive a cash                
          distribution in 2002.  However, we do not speculate as to those             
          reasons.  Petitioner did not introduce the testimony of Paul                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011