-11-
properly looked at JTA’s “other deductions” category. Comparing
JTA’s partnership return with the individual partners’ K-1s, the
Commissioner’s examiner could easily see that JTA had allocated
these “other deductions” on its 1995 return other than in equal
thirds. Even though there was a high probability that JTA’s
reporting the premiums paid for the partners as both a deduction
and a guaranteed payment was a mistake, it wasn’t up to the
examiner to figure this out. Under our rulings in Harrell and
Z-Tron, he should have done what he did--look only on the face of
the returns.
We therefore hold that the Commissioner did apply the same-
share test correctly and JTA was a TEFRA partnership in 1995.
Nehrlich’s assault on the resulting assessment having failed, he
is liable for the tax and a
Decision will be entered for
respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: November 10, 2007