Arlene Nussdorf, et al. - Page 16




                                       - 16 -                                         
                    10.  The determination of the cost basis of the                   
               Purchased Euro Option in the hands of Petitioner is a                  
               pure nonpartnership item that must be determined in                    
               this individual proceeding.  Although that cost basis                  
               (along with the cash contributed) becomes the basis of                 
               * * * [the partner’s] partnership interest [in Ever-                   
               green Trading], the later contribution does not convert                
               a nonpartnership issue into a partnership item.  Just                  
               as if Ms. Nussdorf [petitioner in the case at docket                   
               No. 24289-05] had purchased a partnership interest from                
               an outsider, the determination of Ms. Nussdorf’s cost                  
               basis in her Purchased Euro Option is irrelevant to any                
               other partner and cannot be determined by examining the                
               partnership books. * * *                                               
                    11.  The cost basis of the Purchased Euro Option                  
               in the hands of Ms. Nussdorf must be determined by                     
               looking to I.R.C. § 1012 and the authorities thereunder                
               * * *.                                                                 
                    12.  An issue concerning the cost basis of prop-                  
               erty in the hands of the taxpayer, pre-contribution,                   
               inevitably turns on law and facts unique to the tax-                   
               payer and the particular property in question, which                   
               are the hallmark of “nonpartnership items.” * * * To                   
               consider issues “peculiar to a single partner” as                      
               partnership items, even those relating to partnership                  
               gains or losses, would “blur or erase . . .the distinc-                
               tion between proceedings involving partnership items                   
               and those involving nonpartnership items” and “would be                
               contrary to the system of separate treatment of part-                  
               nership and nonpartnership issues Congress established                 
               by enacting TEFRA.”  [Reproduced literally, citations                  
               omitted.]                                                              
               Respondent counters:12                                                 


               11(...continued)                                                       
          as petitioners’ respective motions in the cases at docket Nos.              
          24297-05 and 24301-05.                                                      
               12For convenience, we quote from respondent’s response to              
          petitioner’s motion in the case at docket No. 24289-05.  That               
          response is virtually the same as respondent’s respective re-               
          sponses to petitioners’ respective motions in the cases at docket           
          Nos. 24297-05 and 24301-05.                                                 





Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007