Guaranty Trust Co. v. Commissioner

34 B.T.A. 384, 1936 BTA LEXIS 707
United States Board of Tax Appeals·Decided April 21, 1936·No. Docket No. 78362.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[387]*387OPINION.

Leech:

The dominant issue is whether decedent’s return for the period from January 1 to December 16, 1933, the date of his death,, should include decedent’s share of the partnership profits for the interval between July 31, 1933, the end of the partnership’s fiscal year, and December 16, 1933, when; decedent died. Both decedent, and the partnership were on a cash receipts and disbursements basis.

The Revenue Act of 1932 is controlling. Section 182 (a) provides:

SEC. 182. TAX OP PARTNERS.

(a) General Kule. — There shall be included in computing the net income of each partner his distributive share, whether distributed or not, of the net income of the partnership for the taxable year. If the taxable year of a partner is different from that of the partnership, the amount so included shall be based upon the income of the partnership, for any taxable year of the partnership ending within his taxable year.

The “taxable year” of the partnership differed here from the “taxable year” of the decedent, since such year of the partnership was its fiscal year ended July 31, 1933, and that of the decedent was the calendar year. Sec. 48 (a).1 Thus the determination of decedent’s taxable income for the period from January 1 to December 16, 1933, when he died, “shall be based upon the income of the partnership for any taxable year of the partnership ending within his taxable year.” Sec. 182 (a), supra. A taxable year of the partnership ended on July 31, 1933. No other such year ended before decedent’s death, unless decedent’s death, ipso facto, terminated a second “taxable year” of the partnership.

The partnership contract provided .for only one accounting period, which was at the close of the fiscal year. A provision for any other termination of the taxable year, except by mutual agreement, was not included in the contract. Article nine of the agreement reads in part as follows:

In tbe event of any dissolution of tbe co-partnersbip under any provision of this agreement or in any manner or for any cause whatsoever, the assets thereof shall be applied first, to the payment of the debts thereof; second, to the return of the capital invested therein by any partner hereto; and third, to the distribution of the profits or surplus in accordance with the provisions hereinabove set forth for the distribution of net gains and profits.

[388]*388The surviving partners, after decedent’s death, carried on the partnership for the purpose of its liquidation, which was not completed until 1934. None of the proceeds of that liquidation were received by or available to decedent, and were not available to or received by petitioner, his representative, until 1934.

This partnership was a New York firm. - Under the law of that state, not only the addition of a partner does not effect the dissolution of a partnership, (Helvering v. Archbald, 70 Fed. (2d) 720), but the death of the decedent partner, though it may cause dissolution, certainly does not terminate the “taxable year” of the partnership where, as here, the surviving partners continue it for purposes of liquidation. Partnership Law of New York, secs. 60, 61, and 62.2

As this Board held in Abe De Roy et al., Executors, 19 B. T. A. 452, upon identical facts arising under section 218 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1924, which is substantially the same as section 182 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1932, supra, here applicable:

* * ⅜ The death of the partner did not terminate or shorten the accounting period of the partnership and there was only one accounting period of the partnership ending in the decedent’s taxable year before us. * * ⅜ See R. W. Archbald, Jr., et al., Executors, 4 B. T. A. 483, where we said:
“It seems clear to us that the death of a partner does not shorten the partnership’s fiscal or calendar year to an accounting period terminating at the death of the partner and that only a complete liquidation during the calendar or fiscal year terminates the accounting period. This partnership has but one accounting period ending in 1920. The statutory net income of the partnership could not in this instance be computed before the close of its fiscal year. This being our view, we must hold that there should be included in the deceased’s return of income for 1920 only his distributive share of the partnership net income for its fiscal year ending January 31, 1920.”

To sustain respondent and include in decedent’s taxable income, for the period prior to his death, the partnership income earned between July 31, 1933, the end of the partnership’s fiscal year, and December 16, 1933, the date of decedent’s death, would require our violation of the basic tenet of income tax law that such tax is assessed on the basis of a period of 12 months. See Helvering v. Morgan's, Inc., 293 U. S. 121; General Machinery Corporation, 33 B. T. A. 1215. The Revenue Act of 1932, section 47, specifically provides for “Returns for a period of less than twelve months.” See also section 48 (a), supra. The statute does not'include a provision permitting [389]*389returns for a period, of more than twelve months. This Board refused to increase such period in the De Roy case, supra, and in R. W. Archbald, Jr., et al., Executors, 4 B. T. A. 483. Both of those cases are directly in point. The De Boy case involved facts identical with those here, and it was decided after the appeal of Maurice L. Goldman et al., Executors, 15 B. T. A. 1341, which qualified the rule adopted in the Archbald case. See United States v. Wood, 79 Fed. (2d) 286; G. C. M. 2308, vol. VI-2 C. B. 229, 1927. Respondent cites Maurice L. Goldman et al., Executors, supra; Clarence B. Davi-son, Executor, 20 B. T. A. 856; affd., 54 Fed. (2d) 1077; J. L. Hall et al., Executors, 25 B. T. A. 1; Beverly W. Smith, Administrator, 26 B. T. A. 778; affd., 67 Fed. (2d) 167; First Trust Co. of Omaha v. United States, 1 Fed. Supp. 900; Peoples-Pittsburgh, Trust Co. v. United States, 10 Fed. Supp. 139. None of these cases, nor any other to which our attention has been directed, disturbs the rule followed in the Archbald and De Boy cases in its application to the facts presented here.

The argument that the disputed income thus escapes income tax should be addressed to Congress, not to this Board. See Commissioner v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co., 296 U. S. 85; Sawtell v. Commissioner, 82 Fed. (2d) 221.

Respondent’s contention, that the returns filed by the surviving partners estop petitioner from taking his present position, is untenable. Those returns were filed without the consent of the Commissioner. In our view of the law just stated, which, of course, the ' surviving partners could not alter, these returns were neither authorized nor required. Revenue Act of 1932, sec. 189;3 Regulations 77, art. 941.4

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Guaranty Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 34 B.T.A. 384, 1936 BTA LEXIS 707 (bta 1936).

34 B.T.A. 384 (Guaranty Trust Co. v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Guaranty Trust Co. v. Commissioner
34 B.T.A. 384 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1936)