Zuckman v. United States

6 Citing cases

  1. Foster v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    80 T.C. 34 (U.S.T.C. 1983)   Cited 55 times
    Noting usefulness of parties informally conferring to narrow issues

    In the absence of additional characteristics (see the previous footnote), an unincorporated enterprise such as a partnership which lacks two or more of the four determinative corporate characteristics will not be classified as an association but rather as a partnership. Sec. 301.7701-2(a)(3), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; Larson v. Commissioner, supra at 185; Zuckman v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 712, 524 F.2d 729, 744 (1975). This reflects the regulation's objective of limiting the ability of a partnership to qualify as a corporation for tax purposes.

  2. Larson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

    66 T.C. 159 (U.S.T.C. 1976)

    In other words, even though there may be centralized administration by a general partner, the "centralization of management" test will not be met if the general partner has a meaningful proprietary interest. See Zuckman v. United States, 524 F.2d 729 (Ct.Cl. 1975). In specifying this additional condition, respondent has adopted the theory of Glensder Textile Co., supra, that managing partners with such interests in the business are not "analogous to directors of a corporation" because they act in their own interests "and not merely in a representative capacity for a body of persons having a limited investment and a limited liability."

  3. Larson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    66 T.C. 159 (U.S.T.C. 1976)

    In other words, even though there may be centralized administration by a general partner, the ‘centralization of management’ test will not be met if the general partner has a meaningful proprietary interest. See Zuckman v. United States, 524 F.2d 729 (Ct.Cl. 1975). In specifying this additional condition, respondent has adopted the theory of Glensder Textile Co., supra, that managing partners with such interests in the business are not ‘analogous to directors of a corporation’ because they act in their own interests ‘and not merely in a representative capacity for a body of persons having a limited investment and a limited liability.’

  4. Infusaid Corp. v. Intermedics Infusaid, Inc.

    739 F.2d 661 (1st Cir. 1984)   Cited 18 times
    Discussing whether partnership or joint-venture law would apply between two corporations, and ultimately deciding to apply partnership law

    Woodruff v. Bryant, 558 S.W.2d 535, 539 (Tex.Civ.App. 1977) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). Accord, Zuckman v. United States, 524 F.2d 729, 737 (Ct.Cl. 1975). See also H. Reuschlein W. Gregory, Handbook on the Law of Agency and Partnership 348 (1979).

  5. Jones v. C. I. R

    640 F.2d 745 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 9 times
    Referring to "the crucial fifth and sixth National Carbide factors — whether the relationship was arms-length and independent, and whether the corporate general partner functioned in a manner consistent with the normal duties of a general partner . . ."

    In Rev.Proc. 72-13, 1972-1 C.B. 735, the Service announced it would not give advance rulings on whether a limited partnership with a sole corporate general partner qualified as a partnership for tax treatment if the limited partners owned directly or indirectly more than 20% of the corporate general partner or any affiliate. These rules reflect a concern about abuse of the tax laws by limited partnerships utilizing controlled corporations as general partners. See Zuckman v. United States, 207 Ct.Cl. 712, 524 F.2d 729 (1975). This fifth National Carbide factor reflects a similar concern, albeit in a different context.

  6. World Airways, Inc. v. C. I. R

    564 F.2d 886 (9th Cir. 1977)   Cited 18 times

    In attempting to ascertain whether the lease he contemplated would be considered casual or short-term, the taxpayer here could reasonably have concluded that the lease of the plane was different both in kind and degree from the lease of a Xerox machine for the duration of the useful life of that model copier. Under these circumstances, I think it appropriate to hold the Commissioner to this interpretation of the Tax Code. Zuckman v. United States, 524 F.2d 729, 739, 207 Ct.Cl. 712 (1975); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States, 395 F.2d 1005, 1008, 184 Ct.Cl. 492 (1968); McCord v. Granger, 201 F.2d 103, 106 (3d Cir. 1952). For these reasons, I believe that the Tax Court's decision to deny the investment credit to petitioner should be reversed.