Burke v. C.I.R., 06-1865.
Decision Date | 04 May 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 06-1865.,06-1865. |
Citation | 485 F.3d 171 |
Parties | Timothy J. BURKE, Petitioner, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Timothy J. Burke, for appellant.
Jonathan S. Cohen, Attorney, Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice, with whom Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General, and Regina S. Moriarty, Attorney, Tax Division, were on brief, for appellee.
Before TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON,* Senior Circuit Judge, and LIPEZ, Circuit Judge.
On May 14, 2004, Timothy J. Burke received a notice of deficiency from the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") stating that Burke owed taxes on his distributive share of his partnership's income for 1998. Burke petitioned the tax court for a redetermination of his tax liability, arguing that he was not liable for tax on his 1998 distributive share because the partnership's receipts were placed in escrow. The tax court rejected Burke's argument and granted the IRS's motion for summary judgment. Burke appeals the tax court's ruling. After careful consideration, we affirm.
On October 13, 1993, Burke formed a partnership with Jeffrey Cohen named "Cohen & Burke," agreeing to split the proceeds of the enterprise evenly after allocating a ten percent origination fee to the partner who generated new business. In 1998, a dispute arose between the two partners when Cohen allegedly refused to comply with a superseding partnership agreement that linked the distribution of the partnership's proceeds more tightly to each partner's individual efforts1 and stole money received by the partnership. As a result of the dispute, Burke filed suit against Cohen in Massachusetts state court on October 4, 1999, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, deceit, and conversion, and requesting an accounting. Cohen and Burke agreed to keep the partnership receipts in an escrow account pending the outcome of the litigation.
Meanwhile, Cohen filed the partnership tax return for 1998 reporting $242,000 in ordinary income, with $121,000 as each partner's distributive share.2 Burke reported zero as his distributive share of partnership income and filed a notice of inconsistent determination stating that Cohen's partnership tax filing was factually and legally inaccurate.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued Burke a notice of deficiency alleging that Burke had improperly failed to report his distributive share of partnership income on his individual return. Burke timely petitioned the tax court for redetermination of the deficiency, claiming that his distribution of partnership income from 1998 should not have been taxed that year because the money was being held in escrow and he therefore did not have access to it. The IRS filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that, as a matter of law, a partner's distribution of partnership income was taxable in the year the partnership received the income, regardless of whether the partner actually received the distribution. Burke filed an opposition to the IRS's motion for summary judgment claiming that there were material facts in dispute precluding summary judgment in favor of the IRS and moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether he was required to report his distributive share of the 1998 partnership income. The tax court granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS, holding that Burke was required to include his distributive share of partnership income for the 1998 taxable year even though he had not yet received that distribution.
We review the award of summary judgment de novo. State Police Ass'n v. Comm'r, 125 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1997).
Section 701 of the Internal Revenue code provides that 26 U.S.C. § 701. Section 703(a) provides that "[t]he taxable income of a partnership shall be computed in the same manner as in the case of an individual." Id. § 703(a).
Burke argues that his distribution of partnership income for 1998 should not have been taxed that year because that income was (and remains) "frozen" in an escrow account, such that neither he, nor his partner, has access to the income. In support of his argument, Burke cites several cases (none of which deal with partnership or partner taxation) that hold that an individual taxpayer must only include income to which he has a claim of right. See, e.g., N. Am. Oil Consol. v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417, 422, 52 S.Ct. 613, 76 L.Ed. 1197 (1932) ( ).
Citing § 703's language that "[t]he taxable income of a partnership shall be computed in the same manner as in the case of an individual," Burke contends that under these cases, the partnership did not earn taxable income in 1998 because "the restriction of funds . . . defers the recognition of income at the partnership level, as it does for individuals, until the restriction is removed."
But § 703 does not help Burke. A self-imposed restriction on the availability of income cannot legally defer recognition of that income. See Reed v. Comm'r, 723 F.2d 138, 143 (1st Cir.1983) (). The partnership received the money free and clear in 1998. It was the individual partners, Burke and Cohen, who chose to place the funds in escrow — not the partnership's clients or other persons owing the partnership money. Compare with id. at 142 (). Thus, Burke's contentions have only to do with the individual partners' access to the funds after they were placed in escrow and not the partnership's access to them.
It is well settled that partners' distributions are taxed in the year the partnership receives its earnings, regardless of whether the partners actually receive their share of partnership earnings: "Few principles of partnership taxation are more firmly established than that no matter the reason for nondistribution each partner must pay taxes on his distributive share." United States v. Basye, 410 U.S. 441, 454, 93 S.Ct. 1080, 35 L.Ed.2d 412 (1973); see also Heiner v. Mellon, 304 U.S. 271, 281, 58 S.Ct. 926, 82 L.Ed. 1337 (1938) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re 650 Fifth Ave.
... ... Napolitano , 604 F.3d 732, 740 (2d Cir. 2010). Once the moving party has asserted facts showing that the nonmoving party's claims cannot ... Cf. Burke v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , 485 F.3d 171, 174-75 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding that a plaintiff's ... ...
-
In re 650 Fifth Ave.
... ... Napolitano , 604 F.3d 732, 740 (2d Cir. 2010). Once the moving party has asserted facts showing that the nonmoving party's claims cannot ... Cf. Burke v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , 485 F.3d 171, 174-75 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding that a plaintiff's ... ...
-
Fairchild v. Workman
... ... House v. Hatch, 527 F.3d 1010, 1015 (10th Cir.2008), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1345, 173 L.Ed.2d 613 (2009). If the state court ... ...
-
Bly v. St. Amand
... ... Jewett v. Brady, 634 F.3d 67, 76 (1st Cir.2011) (quoting Walker v. Martin, U.S. , 131 S.Ct. 1120, 1127, 179 L.Ed.2d 62 (2011) ); Coleman ... ...
-
Current developments in partners and partnerships.
...Nehrlich, TC Memo 2007-88. (5) IRS Letter Ruling 200734003 (5/15/07). (6) Chong, TC Memo 2007-12. (7) Burke, TC Memo 2005-297. (8) Burke, 485 F3d 171 (1st Cir. 2007). (9) Rev. Proc. 2007-65, 2007-45 IRB 967. (10) AM 2007-002 (1/11/07). (11) Rev. Rul. 2004-43, 2004-18 IRB 842. (12) Rev. Rul.......
-
The practitioner's role in reviewing LLC allocations.
...income is actually distributed or whether there is a dispute among the members regarding how the LLC's income should be allocated (Burke, 485 F.3d 171 (1st Cir. 2007)). This problem may arise when there is an oral agreement as to the method for making LLC Oral Modifications to Articles or O......
-
The CPA's role in reviewing LLC allocations.
...distributed or whether there is a dispute among the members as to how the income should be allocated (Burke, TC Memo 2005-297, aff'd 485 F3d 171 (1st Cir. 2007)). A problem may arise when there is an oral agreement as to the method for making LLC Oral Modifications to an LLC's Articles or O......