1 / 7

Garcia v. Commissioner

Garcia v. Commissioner. Chris J. Anderson TX 8020 July 9, 2007. Garcia v. Commissioner. Citation: 96 T.C. 792 Justice: Clapp Code Sections: 165 & 702. Facts. January 31, 1985- Garcia, the petitioner, invested $137,000 into Banana U.S.A. along with three other people.

sagira
Download Presentation

Garcia v. Commissioner

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Garcia v. Commissioner Chris J. Anderson TX 8020 July 9, 2007

  2. Garcia v. Commissioner • Citation: 96 T.C. 792 • Justice: Clapp • Code Sections: 165 & 702

  3. Facts • January 31, 1985- Garcia, the petitioner, invested $137,000 into Banana U.S.A. along with three other people. • Each general partner was entitled to 25% of profits and losses. • March 1985- Garcia sent a letter to one of the partners demanding a return on his investment in Banana U.S.A. based on “gross mismanagement” • January 21, 1986- Garcia filed a suit against the other three partners and the partnership for rescission, damages, and dissolution of the partnership.

  4. Facts • Banana U.S.A issued a K-1 to Garcia for 1985 and allocated to Garcia an ordinary loss of $101,920. Garcia timely filed his return for 1985 and claimed the loss attributable to his share of Banana U.S.A. • The IRS disallowed this loss stating that Garcia did not sustain a loss in 1985 as a result of his investment in the partnership.

  5. Issue- Is Garcia entitled to deduct his distributive share of partnership loss on his 1985 Federal income tax return? • Ruling- Yes, each partner has a distributive share of such loss to the extent of his adjusted basis in the partnership at the end of 1985.

  6. Reasoning • Code Sec. 165- Partner’s pending suit for return of capital investment didn’t justify denial of deduction for his distributive share of losses. Deduction was for ordinary loss from partnership operations (partnership bottom line loss), not for loss of investment. • Code Sec. 702- Partner’s deduction of bottom line losses was proper even though his suit against partners for return of his investment capital was pending. The lawsuit didn’t provide any prospect for recovering bottom line losses. • Case was decided in favor of Garcia and was entered under Rule 155

  7. Question for the class… • If Garcia prevails in his suit for rescission of the partnership agreement, what tax consequences will result?

More Related