Citron v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
P borrowed $ 60,000 and, along with three other limited partners, invested in a partnership (V) in order to produce a motion picture.
Read the full summary
P borrowed $ 60,000 and, along with three other limited partners, invested in a partnership (V) in order to produce a motion picture. The general partner was a corporation (C). The motion picture was made by use of the capital invested by the limited partners and no debt was incurred by V. Upon completion, the negative came into the possession of the executive producer (an unrelated third party which had certain rights in it). Controversy arose over possession of the negative, and V was unable to obtain the negative. V had a copy of the film (from which only poor quality copies could be made)…
1DissentSwift, J.
For the reasons set forth below, I respectfully disagree with the allowance by the majority opinion in this case of an abandonment loss.
As the findings of fact of the majority opinion explain (majority op. pp. 205-206), even though Vandom had no profits (and therefore contrary to the partnership agreement), Vandom made payments of interest on behalf of petitioner with regard to the loan petitioner obtained from the bank. Because the payments by the partnership of interest petitioner owed to the bank were contrary to the partnership agreement, the provision of the partnership agreement making…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Burnet v. HoustonSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Boehm v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Freeland v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1980
- La Rue v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1988
- Middleton v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1981
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.