Quick Trust v. Commissioner Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A deceased partner’s estate cannot step up the basis of its partnership interest to the extent it is attributable to zero-basis accounts receivable. The court held these receivables constitute income in respect of a decedent (IRD), precluding a basis step-up and preserving their character as ordinary income upon collection.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that the “income in respect of a decedent” (IRD) rules of § 691 override the partnership basis adjustment rules. It prevents the conversion of ordinary income (unrealized receivables) into a non-taxable return of basis upon a partner’s death.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
A partner (Quick) in a cash-basis architectural and engineering partnership died. At the time of his death, the partnership had ceased active business and its only significant assets were zero-basis accounts receivable for services previously rendered. Upon Quick’s death, his estate acquired his partnership interest. The partnership made an election under I.R.C. § 754, which allows for an adjustment to the basis of partnership property under § 743(b) when a partnership interest is transferred due to death. The petitioner, a trust that succeeded the estate’s interest, argued that the basis of the inherited partnership interest should be its fair market value at the date of death, pursuant to § 1014(a). This would create a high basis in the underlying receivables, effectively sheltering the subsequent collections from income tax. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue contended that the portion of the partnership interest attributable to the receivables was income in respect of a decedent (IRD) under § 691. If correct, § 1014(c) would deny a step-up in basis for that portion of the interest.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the portion of a deceased partner’s partnership interest attributable to the partnership’s zero-basis accounts receivable constitute income in respect of a decedent under § 691, thereby precluding a step-up in basis under § 1014(c)?
Yes. The right to share in the collection of the partnership’s zero-basis Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure d
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the portion of a deceased partner’s partnership interest attributable to the partnership’s zero-basis accounts receivable constitute income in respect of a decedent under § 691, thereby precluding a step-up in basis under § 1014(c)?
Conclusion
This decision solidifies the principle that the IRD rules penetrate the partnership Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim
Legal Rule
A deceased partner's share of a partnership's unrealized receivables is income in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aut
Legal Analysis
The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the "entity theory" of partnerships Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea c
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An inherited interest in a partnership’s zero-basis accounts receivable is **income