JOSEPH J. TALLAL, JR., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a partnership's expenses are not deductible under 26 U.S.C. § 162(a) unless the partnership was undertaken with the dominant hope and intent of realizing a profit, and the tax court's finding of no such profit objective was not clearly erroneous.
Appellant Tallal, a limited partner, challenged the tax court's finding that his partnership, Cumberland, was not engaged in coal mining with the prim…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse "Clearly Erroneous" Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
GEE, Circuit Judge.
This is a tax deficiency case. Appellant Tallal argues that the tax court erred in finding that Cumberland, the partnership in which Tallal was a limited partner, was not engaged in coal mining with the primary objective and intent of making a profit and therefore erred in upholding the Commissioner’s assessment of a deficiency in Tallal’s 1976 tax return. We affirm.
All expenses of every business transaction are not necessarily deductible under 26 U.S.C. § 162(a). Before any such deduction is allowed, it must be shown that the activity or enterprise was undertaken with the dominant hope and intent of realizing a profit. Louisiana Credit Union League v. United States, 693 F. 2d 525, 532 (5th Cir.1982); Hirsch v. Commissioner, 315 F. 2d 731, 736 (9th Cir.1963). When the taxpayer is a member of a partnership, we have interpreted 26 U.S.C. § 702(b) to require that business purpose must be assessed at the partnership level. Barham v. United States, 301 F.Supp. 43, 44-47 (M.D.Ga.1969), aff'd per curiam, 429 F. 2d 40, 41 (5th Cir.1970).
Accordingly, for the purpose of determining whether an expense is deductible under 26 U.S.C. § 162(a), the partnership’s motive controls, not an individual partner’s motive for joining the partnership. Brannen v. Commissioner, 722 F. 2d 695, 703-704 (11th Cir. 1984); Goodwin v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 424, 437 (1980), aff'd, 691 F. 2d 490 (3d Cir.1982) (without published opinion); Madison Gas & Electric Co. v. Commissioner, 633 F. 2d 512, 517 (7th Cir.1980).
Using the criteria identified in Treasury Regulation § 1.183-2 for guidance, the tax court in today’s case found that Cumberland lacked a bona fide profit objective. Based on this, the tax court concluded that Tallal’s deduction under § 162(a) was not justified. The tax court’s finding of a lack of a bona fide profit objective is not clearly erroneous. Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 285-87, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1788-89, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982); Byram v. United States, 705 F. 2d 1418, 1422-23 (5th Cir.1983).
We AFFIRM.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Polakof v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 820 F.2d 321 (9th Cir. 1987)
-
Thomas v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 792 F.2d 1256 (4th Cir. 1986)
-
Simon v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue. Appeal of Herman Simon and Ursula Simon, 830 F.2d 499 (3d Cir. 1987)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (U.S. 1982)
- E.A. Brannen and Frances K. Brannen v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 722 F.2d 695 (11th Cir. 1984)
- Clement L. Hirsch v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 315 F.2d 731 (9th Cir. 1963)
- John D. and Sally A. Byram v. United States, 705 F.2d 1418 (5th Cir. 1983)
- La. Credit Union League v. The United States, 693 F.2d 525 (5th Cir. 1982)
- Madison GAS & Elec. Co. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 633 F.2d 512 (7th Cir. 1980)
- Barham v. United States, 429 F.2d 40 (5th Cir. 1970)