DocketNumber: Docket Nos. 18279-18282
Citation Numbers: 15 B.T.A. 1042
Judges: Milliken
Filed Date: 3/22/1929
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/18/2024
The respondent has determined the'deficiencies here in question by invoking section 218 (a) of the Bevenue Acts of 1918, 1921, and 1924. He determined that the partnership was on a fiscal year basis and the partners should report as their income, and be taxed accordingly, their proportion of the income of the partnership for its fiscal year ending within the calendar year of the partners. The result was to place in the year 1919 income subject to tax which the partners had reported and paid a tax on for the year 1918. The same situation obtained and resulted in the deficiencies for alj the years in controversy.
If the partnership had a fiscal year ending within the calendar year of the partners, the action of the respondent would be correct. See J. H. Goadly Mills, 3 B. T. A. 1245, and J. E. Asbury, 4 B. T. A. 1244.
There is no dispute between the parties as to the correct income of each of the partners, provided section 218(a) does not require them to return the income of a partnership fiscal year ending in their calendar years.
Judgment will J>e entered under Rule 50.