X hits on this document

96 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

29 / 38

  • -

    29 -

independently recognizable entity apart from its partners, and

that business conducted by a partnership is considered apart from

any business activity conducted by its partners on their own

behalves.

See,

e.g.,

Madison

Gas

&

Elec.

Co.

v.

Commissioner,

633 F.2d 512, 517 (7th Cir. 1980) (expenses were characterized as

“pre-operational costs” of the partnership even though the

general partner was already in the same business), affg. 72 T.C.

521 (1979); Brannen v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 471, 505 (1982)

(“the partnership is an independently recognizable entity apart

from its partners for the purposes of the calculation of its

taxable income under section 703”), affd. 722 F.2d 695 (11th Cir.

1984); see also Polakof v. Commissioner, 820 F.2d 321, 323 (9th

Cir. 1987) (in characterizing partnership income “it is the

dominant economic motive of the partnership, not that of the

individual investors, that is determinative”), affg. T.C. Memo.

1985-197; Tallal v. Commissioner, 778 F.2d 275, 276 (5th Cir.

1985) (“When the taxpayer is a member of a partnership, we have

interpreted 26 U.S.C. § 702(b) to require that business purpose

must be assessed at the partnership level.”), affg. T.C. Memo.

1984-486.

Moreover,

petitioner

was

a

limited

partner

of

MSPR,

Ltd.

He

did

not

actively

participate

in

the

conduct

of

the

partnership business.

The frequency of the taxpayer’s sales “is highly probative

in the real estate context because the presence of frequent sales

Document info
Document views96
Page views96
Page last viewedThu Dec 08 06:31:33 UTC 2016
Pages38
Paragraphs2521
Words8171

Comments