DocketNumber: Docket No. 21683-94.
Citation Numbers: 73 T.C.M. 2094, 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 106, 1997 T.C. Memo. 95
Judges: PANUTHOS
Filed Date: 2/24/1997
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 106">*106 An order will be issued granting respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to strike and denying respondent's motion for partial summary judgment.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PANUTHOS: Chief Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on two unrelated motions: (1) Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to strike allegations set forth in the petition that Johanna McMichael is entitled to innocent spouse relief pursuant to
In 1987, petitioner filed suit in Florida State court against Fowler, Smith, the partnership, and related Bentley Village entities, alleging various causes of action including theft, fraud, and embezzlement. The above-described litigation was eventually the subject of a negotiated settlement.
In discussions culminating in the settlement of the aforementioned litigation, petitioner, Smith, and Fowler understood that they would not be able to reconcile their differences and that either Smith and Fowler, on the one hand, or petitioner, on the other, would have to relinquish their ownership interests in Life Care and the related Bentley Village entities. Initially, attempts at settling the dispute were hampered by the parties' inability to agree as to the value of the various Bentley Village entities. In this regard, by letter dated1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 106">*109 June 15, 1988, Marshall G. Reissman (Mr. Reissman), counsel for Smith and Fowler, wrote to Stanley W. Rosenkranz (Mr. Rosenkranz), counsel for petitioner, proposing that the litigation be settled by petitioner's relinquishing his interests in the various Bentley Village entities, including Life Care, to Smith and Fowler, for an immediate payment of $ 500,000, a $ 100,000 annual consulting fee for 5 years, and a lump-sum payment at the end of 5 years at a price to be determined under a mutually agreeable formula.
The litigation eventually was settled on January 12, 1989, pursuant to an agreement entitled "Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement" (the settlement agreement). Contrary to the terms set forth in Mr. Reissman's June 15, 1988, letter, the settlement agreement provides alternative options respecting the sale of the parties' respective partnership interests. Specifically, the settlement agreement allowed petitioner an 8-month period within which to exercise an option to purchase Smith's and Fowler's partnership interests in Life Care. However, during this same 8-month period, Smith and Fowler could preempt petitioner by exercising their own options to purchase petitioner's1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 106">*110 partnership interest in Life Care. The settlement agreement further stated that, in the event that petitioner did not exercise his option within the prescribed 8-month period, Smith and Fowler would be required to pay petitioner $ 2,370,000 that would be allocated 50 percent to a consulting fee and 50 percent to the purchase of petitioner's interests in the various Bentley Village entities, including petitioner's partnership interest in Life Care. The settlement agreement includes a paragraph that states: In exchange for a cash payment of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($ 200,000.00) at the time the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement is executed, all existing lawsuits would be dismissed with prejudice and complete releases would be exchanged with McMichael.
Petitioner did not exercise his option to purchase Smith's and Fowler's partnership interests in Life Care. By letter dated November 16, 1989, Mr. Reissman advised Mr. Rosenkranz that Smith and Fowler would purchase petitioner's interests in the various Bentley Village entities pursuant to the agreement dated January 12, 1989, and that it1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 106">*111 was his clients' position that the sale would be effective January 12, 1989. On June 30, 1990, petitioner, Smith, Fowler, and other interested parties executed an agreement (the sale agreement) providing for the transfer of petitioner's interests in the Bentley Village entities, including Life Care, to Smith, Fowler, and others, for $ 2,570,000. The agreement states that $ 200,000 of the purchase price was paid upon execution of the settlement agreement.
Life Care issued petitioner Forms K-1 for each of the taxable years 1989 and 1990. However, petitioners decided to exclude petitioner's distributive share of the partnership's items of income, loss, deduction, and credit in their joint Federal income tax returns for 1989 and 1990 on the ground that petitioner was no longer a partner in Life Care after January 12, 1989.
On June 27, 1994, respondent mailed separate notices of final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA) to the tax matters partner (TMP) for Life Care determining adjustments to the partnership's tax returns for 1989 and 1990. On August 8, 1994, respondent mailed a copy of the FPAA to petitioners. Each of the FPAA's contains identical language stating: It 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 106">*112 is determined that the purchase and sale of partnership interests between partners Robert McMichael, Hudson Fowler, and Raymond Smith was effective on June 30, 1990 rather than on January 13, 1989. The correct distributive shares of partnership income, loss, deductions, and credits have been determined based on their ownership percentages in accordance with
1.
As indicated, the petition for readjustment includes allegations that Johanna McMichael is entitled to relief as an innocent spouse under
It is now well settled that the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether a taxpayer/partner is entitled to innocent spouse relief under
2.
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials.
Respondent argues for partial summary judgment on the basis that petitioner remained a Life Care partner until June 30, 1990. Respondent contends that the "clear1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 106">*115 and unambiguous" terms of the settlement agreement executed January 12, 1989, and the sale agreement executed June 30, 1990, support her position. Further, respondent contends that petitioner is precluded by the rule articulated in
For Federal tax purposes, the terms "partnership" and "partner" are defined in (2) Partnership and partner.--The term "partnership" includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other unincorporated organization, through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on, and which is not, within the meaning of this title, a trust or estate or a corporation; and the term "partner" includes a member in such a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or organization.
See sec. 761(a). The existence or nonexistence of a partnership under State law is not determinative for Federal tax purposes.
In whether, considering all the facts--the agreement, the conduct of the parties in execution of its provisions, their statements, the testimony of disinterested persons, the relationship of the parties, their respective abilities and capital contributions, the actual control of income and the purposes for which it is used, and any other facts throwing light on their true intent--the parties in good faith and acting with a business purpose intended to join together in the present conduct of the enterprise. * * * [Fn. ref. omitted.]
Although one can draw an inference from both the settlement agreement and sale agreement that petitioner remained a Life Care partner until June 1990, the agreements do not define the membership1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 106">*118 of the Life Care partnership or otherwise address petitioner's status. The agreements do little more than describe the terms and conditions by which petitioner ultimately transferred his Life Care partnership interest. In this regard, we are not persuaded that the duration of petitioner's status as a Life Care partner is prescribed solely or unambiguously by the terms of the agreements.
Consistent with the preceding discussion, we conclude that respondent's reliance on
The record in this case includes conflicting assertions as to whether petitioner remained a Life Care partner following the execution of the settlement agreement on January 12, 1989. 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 106">*120 these assertions, Mr. Reissman sent a letter to Mr. Rosenkranz dated November 16, 1989, advising that Smith and Fowler would purchase petitioner's interest in the various Bentley Village entities pursuant to the agreement dated January 12, 1989, and that it was their position that the sale would be effective January 12, 1989.
Viewing the known facts in a light most favorable to petitioner, we conclude that material facts remain in dispute and that additional factual development is necessary to resolve the question of whether petitioner remained a partner of Life Care until June 30, 1990. In particular, we are unable to determine from the record presented the intent of the parties respecting the composition of the Life Care partnership after the execution of the settlement agreement on January 12, 1989. Consequently, we will deny respondent's motion for partial summary judgment.
To reflect the foregoing,
1. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. References to petitioner in the singular are to Robert W. McMichael.↩
3. The following is a summary of the relevant facts drawn from the entire record that do not appear to be in dispute. These facts are stated solely for purposes of deciding the pending motions.
4. At the time the petition was filed, Life Care maintained its principal place of business in Naples, Florida.↩
5. This case is appealable to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Thus, although this Court has declined to adopt the rule of
6. It appears that petitioner concedes that he was a partner until Jan. 12. 1989.↩
Jacklin v. Commissioner , 79 T.C. 340 ( 1982 )
Dahlstrom v. Commissioner , 85 T.C. 812 ( 1985 )
Commissioner v. Tower , 66 S. Ct. 532 ( 1946 )
Frazell v. Commissioner , 88 T.C. 1405 ( 1987 )
Zaentz v. Commissioner , 90 T.C. 753 ( 1988 )
Dynamic Energy, Inc. v. Commissioner , 98 T.C. 48 ( 1992 )
Jack E. Golsen and Sylvia H. Golsen v. Commissioner of ... , 445 F.2d 985 ( 1971 )
Joan S. Schatten v. United States , 746 F.2d 319 ( 1984 )
Merrill N. Bradley and John R. Murray v. United States , 730 F.2d 718 ( 1984 )
Hensel Phelps Construction Company, and Cross-Appellee v. ... , 703 F.2d 485 ( 1983 )
Bernard D. Spector v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 641 F.2d 376 ( 1981 )
Sundstrand Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 17 F.3d 965 ( 1994 )
commissioner-of-internal-revenue-v-carl-l-danielson-and-pauline-s , 378 F.2d 771 ( 1967 )