Limited Partnership within an IRA

Discussion in 'Tax' started by Luka, Jan 20, 2011.

  1. Luka

    Luka Guest

    I am thinking of buying a PTP (KMP) within my IRA, will this cause
    any special tax problems?

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Luka, Jan 20, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Luka

    Guest

    On Jan 20, 6:10 am, Luka <> wrote:

    > I am thinking of buying a PTP (KMP) within  my IRA, will this cause
    > any special tax problems?


    Possibly. It looked like KMP issues a K-1. This means it might have
    unrelated business income. If a partnership held in your IRA
    generates UBI greater than $1000, then your IRA has to be pay tax.
    The tax will be paid by the IRA custodian (ie. the company where your
    IRA is like ETrade, Fidelity), and the tax rate is the trust tax rate
    which is almost a flat 35% (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/
    0,,id=188575,00.html). Line 20V of K-1 states the unrelated business
    income.

    Box L of the K-1 states the initial investment. Say it was 10k and
    line 20V is $300, then if you were to invest 40k then UBI would be
    $1200 and there would be tax. So somehow you should get a sample K-1
    or ask the company about it. If line 20V is zero you have no worries.

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    , Jan 20, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Luka

    NJOracle Guest

    wrote:
    > On Jan 20, 6:10 am, Luka<> wrote:
    >
    >> I am thinking of buying a PTP (KMP) within my IRA, will this cause
    >> any special tax problems?

    >
    > Possibly. It looked like KMP issues a K-1. This means it might have
    > unrelated business income. If a partnership held in your IRA
    > generates UBI greater than $1000, then your IRA has to be pay tax.
    > The tax will be paid by the IRA custodian (ie. the company where your
    > IRA is like ETrade, Fidelity), and the tax rate is the trust tax rate
    > which is almost a flat 35% (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/
    > 0,,id=188575,00.html). Line 20V of K-1 states the unrelated business
    > income.
    >
    > Box L of the K-1 states the initial investment. Say it was 10k and
    > line 20V is $300, then if you were to invest 40k then UBI would be
    > $1200 and there would be tax. So somehow you should get a sample K-1
    > or ask the company about it. If line 20V is zero you have no worries.
    >

    FWIW, I have 400 shares of KMP purchased 6 years ago. Line 20V shows
    -610. I have it in a taxable account, not an IRA so I don't have the
    problem you mentioned above. I only show the amount to give the OP an
    idea of what line 20V might be.

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    NJOracle, Jan 20, 2011
    #3
  4. In article <>,
    <> wrote:
    >On Jan 20, 6:10 am, Luka <> wrote:
    >
    >> I am thinking of buying a PTP (KMP) within  my IRA, will this cause
    >> any special tax problems?

    >
    >Possibly. It looked like KMP issues a K-1. This means it might have
    >unrelated business income. If a partnership held in your IRA
    >generates UBI greater than $1000, then your IRA has to be pay tax.
    >The tax will be paid by the IRA custodian (ie. the company where your
    >IRA is like ETrade, Fidelity), and the tax rate is the trust tax rate
    >which is almost a flat 35% (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/
    >0,,id=188575,00.html). Line 20V of K-1 states the unrelated business
    >income.
    >
    >Box L of the K-1 states the initial investment. Say it was 10k and
    >line 20V is $300, then if you were to invest 40k then UBI would be
    >$1200 and there would be tax. So somehow you should get a sample K-1
    >or ask the company about it. If line 20V is zero you have no worries.



    Just to add a comment:


    The $1000 of UBTI is the total generated by all you IRA accounts.

    So if you have three IRA accounts each with a PTP generating UBTI of
    $400, each custodian will have to calculate the UBTI for this account
    and of course charge you a lot for doing that. Probably well over $250
    for each calculation.
    --

    ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Arthur Kamlet, Jan 20, 2011
    #4
  5. Luka

    Phil Marti Guest

    On Jan 20, 1:31 pm, Arthur Kamlet wrote:


    > The $1000 of UBTI is the total generated by all you IRA accounts.


    Art, do you have a reference that supports this conclusion? This one
    has been driving me nuts for a long time, and I've reached the
    opposite conclusion, but based on only forms and instructions, which
    we all know aren't legally worth the paper they're printed on. I
    suppose there's also the remote possibility that my analysis could be
    faulty.

    Phil Marti
    VITA/TCE Volunteer
    Clarksburg, MD

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Phil Marti, Jan 21, 2011
    #5
  6. Phil Marti <> wrote:
    > Arthur Kamlet wrote:
    >
    >> The $1000 of UBTI is the total generated by all you IRA
    >> accounts.

    >
    > Art, do you have a reference that supports this conclusion?
    > This one has been driving me nuts for a long time, and I've
    > reached the opposite conclusion, but based on only forms and
    > instructions, which we all know aren't legally worth the paper
    > they're printed on. I suppose there's also the remote
    > possibility that my analysis could be faulty.


    I haven't researched this issue, but based on what I do know, I would
    tend to agree with you. I don't see how an IRA could have UBTI,
    since its purpose is to invest in things that generate income. Any
    reasonable investment would satisfy that purpose.

    --
    Stu
    http://downtoearthlawyer.com

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Stuart A. Bronstein, Jan 21, 2011
    #6
  7. Luka

    Bill Brown Guest

    On Jan 21, 12:24 pm, "Stuart A. Bronstein" <>
    wrote:
    > Phil Marti <> wrote:
    > >  Arthur Kamlet wrote:

    >
    > >> The $1000 of UBTI is the total generated by all you IRA
    > >> accounts.

    >
    > > Art, do you have a reference that supports this conclusion?
    > > This one has been driving me nuts for a long time, and I've
    > > reached the opposite conclusion, but based on only forms and
    > > instructions, which we all know aren't legally worth the paper
    > > they're printed on.  I suppose there's also the remote
    > > possibility that my analysis could be faulty.

    >
    > I haven't researched this issue, but based on what I do know, I would
    > tend to agree with you.  I don't see how an IRA could have UBTI,
    > since its purpose is to invest in things that generate income.  Any
    > reasonable investment would satisfy that purpose.
    >
    >

    Here is the needed citation that verifys the validity of Art's
    concern:

    "IRC Section 408(e)(1) Exemption from tax.— Any individual retirement
    account is exempt from taxation under this subtitle unless such
    account has ceased to be an individual retirement account by reason of
    paragraph (2) or (3). Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, any such
    account is subject to the taxes imposed by section 511 (relating to
    imposition of tax on unrelated business income of charitable, etc.
    organizations)."

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Bill Brown, Jan 21, 2011
    #7
  8. In article <Xns9E745FA22AEEDspamtraplexregiacom@130.133.4.11>,
    Stuart A. Bronstein <> wrote:
    >Phil Marti <> wrote:
    >> Arthur Kamlet wrote:
    >>
    >>> The $1000 of UBTI is the total generated by all you IRA
    >>> accounts.

    >>
    >> Art, do you have a reference that supports this conclusion?
    >> This one has been driving me nuts for a long time, and I've
    >> reached the opposite conclusion, but based on only forms and
    >> instructions, which we all know aren't legally worth the paper
    >> they're printed on. I suppose there's also the remote
    >> possibility that my analysis could be faulty.

    >
    >I haven't researched this issue, but based on what I do know, I would
    >tend to agree with you. I don't see how an IRA could have UBTI,
    >since its purpose is to invest in things that generate income. Any
    >reasonable investment would satisfy that purpose.



    No cites, this comes from a recent seminar.


    To answer wheher IRAs are subject to UBTI, Pub 598 is
    pretty clear they are.


    IRAs holding not only MLPs but REITs and certain S Corps and
    LLC etc that generate UBTI maybe subject to filing a 990T and
    paying tax on the income.


    The $1,000 exclusion from tax on UBTI comes from the 990-T
    where all UBTI eventually flows (I think to line 5) and then
    is reduced, but not below zero, by 1,000.

    And the 990-T asks that all sources of UBTI be added to that line.

    ========= ================


    Looking at this as a Form vs Substance issue, it makes little
    sense to think one can split an IRA earning 1500 of UBTI and thus
    clearly subject to UBTI into two separate IRA accounts, perhaps
    with different custodians, each earning 750 of UBTI and magically
    avoid UBTI, but other than trying to understand how to fill out a
    990-T I have not found a cite to this specifically.

    Anyone want to argue why form should rule over substance here?
    --

    ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Arthur Kamlet, Jan 21, 2011
    #8
  9. Luka

    Guest

    On Jan 21, 12:12 pm, Bill Brown <> wrote:

    > "IRC Section 408(e)(1) Exemption from tax.— Any individual retirement
    > account is exempt from taxation under this subtitle unless such
    > account has ceased to be an individual retirement account by reason of
    > paragraph (2) or (3). Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, any such
    > account is subject to the taxes imposed by section 511 (relating to
    > imposition of tax on unrelated business income of charitable, etc.
    > organizations)."


    Why would a for-profit company have unrelated business income. If
    they have ordinary income (line 1 of K-1) then it is not taxable in
    IRA, but certain types of income are unrelated business income and
    taxable in the IRA. I can see that a non-profit company should pay
    the tax because businesses may incorporate as non-profits and shield
    their business profits from taxes. But if you have a company, say one
    selling musical instruments, how can it generate unrelated business
    income? An example of what UBI really is?

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    , Jan 21, 2011
    #9
  10. Luka

    Bill Brown Guest

    On Jan 21, 4:47 pm, "" <removeps-
    > wrote:
    > Why would a for-profit company have unrelated business income.  If
    > they have ordinary income (line 1 of K-1) then it is not taxable in
    > IRA, but certain types of income are unrelated business income and
    > taxable in the IRA.  I can see that a non-profit company should pay
    > the tax because businesses may incorporate as non-profits and shield
    > their business profits from taxes.  But if you have a company, say one
    > selling musical instruments, how can it generate unrelated business
    > income?  An example of what UBI really is?
    >
    >

    A "for-profit" entity (an IRA in this case)) would have unrelated
    business income because Section 408(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code
    says so.

    What is and is not UBI can be determined by reading Section 511 of the
    Internal Revenue Code.

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Bill Brown, Jan 21, 2011
    #10
  11. Luka

    Bill Brown Guest

    On Jan 21, 3:40 pm, (Arthur Kamlet) wrote:
    >
    > Anyone want to argue why form should rule over substance here?
    > --


    Because it is the IRS that gets to apply substance over form and they
    only do that when it increases tax revenue.

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Bill Brown, Jan 21, 2011
    #11
  12. Luka

    Bill Brown Guest

    On Jan 21, 5:10 pm, Bill Brown <> wrote:
    >
    > What is and is not UBI can be determined by reading Section 511 of the
    > Internal Revenue Code.
    >

    Actually, Section 511 sends the reader onto Section 512:

    "512(a)(1)General rule.— Except as otherwise provided in this
    subsection, the term “unrelated business taxable income” means the
    gross income derived by any organization from any unrelated trade or
    business (as defined in section 513) regularly carried on by it, less
    the deductions allowed by this chapter which are directly connected
    with the carrying on of such trade or business, both computed with the
    modifications provided in subsection (b)."

    And, Section 513 says, in part:

    "513(a)General Rule.— The term “unrelated trade or business” means, in
    the case of any organization subject to the tax imposed by section
    511, any trade or business the conduct of which is not substantially
    related (aside from the need of such organization for income or funds
    or the use it makes of the profits derived) to the exercise or
    performance by such organization of its charitable, educational, or
    other purpose or function constituting the basis for its exemption
    under section 501 (or, in the case of an organization described in
    section 511(a)(2)(B), to the exercise or performance of any purpose or
    function described in section 501(c)(3)), except that such term does
    not include any trade or business—

    513(a)(1) in which substantially all the work in carrying on such
    trade or business is performed for the organization without
    compensation;"

    I'm willing to bet that the IRS is going to take the position that
    operating a business is NOT "substantially related ... to the exercise
    or performance" of an IRA making investments to fund the owner's
    retirement.

    When the business and the IRA owner are related parties, even more
    dire threats to the IRA exist.

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Bill Brown, Jan 21, 2011
    #12
  13. In article <>,
    Bill Brown <> wrote:
    >On Jan 21, 3:40 pm, (Arthur Kamlet) wrote:
    >>
    >> Anyone want to argue why form should rule over substance here?
    >> --

    >
    >Because it is the IRS that gets to apply substance over form and they
    >only do that when it increases tax revenue.



    In my example, having just one IRA own a REIT or MLP that
    generates $1500 in UBTI could produce more tax revenue than
    splitting the IRA into two separated accounts, each with 750
    of UBTI, only if form trumped substance.


    So following your "increase tax revenue" argument, theirs should
    argue substance over form, which is what usually happens anyway,
    right?


    ===== =====


    Unrelated comment, Bill: I think you were searching for an
    accrued basis 1040 taxpayer? I think our esteemed moderator
    can help you in your search.
    --

    ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Arthur Kamlet, Jan 21, 2011
    #13
  14. Luka

    Phil Marti Guest

    On Jan 21, 1:40 pm, Arthur Kamlet wrote:

    > The $1,000 exclusion from tax on UBTI comes from the 990-T
    > where all UBTI eventually flows (I think to line 5) and then
    > is reduced, but not below zero, by 1,000.
    >
    > And the 990-T asks that all sources of UBTI be added to that line.


    And this is where I draw my conclusion that it's not the aggregate of
    UBI for all accounts held for the individual beneficiary by all
    custodians, but rather the aggregate UBI in the trust that's filing
    the 990-T. I might argue that if one custodian held two accounts for
    the benefit of the same person that each account is a separate trust
    which looks at only its holdings, but I can also see a substance over
    form argument for one custodian looking at all accounts held for the
    benefit of one individual. What I cannot see supported in the 990-T
    instructions is having custodian A responsible for determining the UBI
    in any accounts held by other custodians for the benefit of the
    individual and then filing a 990-T covering all of them.

    IIRC from the K-1 instructions, the partnership is told to report
    trusts under the trust's EIN, so the individual doesn't even get one.
    If the custodian is supposed to send the individual a copy and the
    individual is supposed to do the aggregation of all K-1's and inform
    the/which? custodian, you'd think the IRS would make a passing
    reference to these responsibilities someplace. I haven't been able to
    find anything with such direction, and that's the only way I can think
    of that the aggregation you mentioned could happen.

    Phil Marti
    VITA/TCE Volunteer
    Clarksburg, MD

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Phil Marti, Jan 22, 2011
    #14
  15. Luka

    Guest

    On Jan 21, 2:27 pm, Bill Brown <> wrote:

    > And, Section 513 says, in part:
    >
    > "513(a)General Rule.— The term “unrelated trade or business” means, in
    > the case of any organization subject to the tax imposed by section
    > 511, any trade or business the conduct of which is not substantially
    > related (aside from the need of such organization for income or funds
    > or the use it makes of the profits derived) to the exercise or
    > performance by such organization of its charitable, educational, or
    > other purpose or function constituting the basis for its exemption
    > under section 501 (or, in the case of an organization described in
    > section 511(a)(2)(B), to the exercise or performance of any purpose or
    > function described in section 501(c)(3)), except that such term does
    > not include any trade or business—
    >
    >    513(a)(1) in which substantially all the work in carrying on such
    > trade or business is performed for the organization without
    > compensation;"
    >
    > I'm willing to bet that the IRS is going to take the position that
    > operating a business is NOT "substantially related ... to the exercise
    > or performance" of an IRA making investments to fund the owner's
    > retirement.


    But if the business was organized as a C corporation and had income
    from these side businesses, then paid out dividends on 1099-DIV, then
    no unrelated business income?

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    , Jan 22, 2011
    #15
  16. Luka

    Bill Brown Guest

    On Jan 22, 12:45 pm, "" <removeps-
    > wrote:
    > On Jan 21, 2:27 pm, Bill Brown <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > And, Section 513 says, in part:

    >
    > > "513(a)General Rule.— The term “unrelated trade or business” means, in
    > > the case of any organization subject to the tax imposed by section
    > > 511, any trade or business the conduct of which is not substantially
    > > related (aside from the need of such organization for income or funds
    > > or the use it makes of the profits derived) to the exercise or
    > > performance by such organization of its charitable, educational, or
    > > other purpose or function constituting the basis for its exemption
    > > under section 501 (or, in the case of an organization described in
    > > section 511(a)(2)(B), to the exercise or performance of any purpose or
    > > function described in section 501(c)(3)), except that such term does
    > > not include any trade or business—

    >
    > >    513(a)(1) in which substantially all the work in carrying on such
    > > trade or business is performed for the organization without
    > > compensation;"

    >
    > > I'm willing to bet that the IRS is going to take the position that
    > > operating a business is NOT "substantially related ... to the exercise
    > > or performance" of an IRA making investments to fund the owner's
    > > retirement.

    >
    > But if the business was organized as a C corporation and had income
    > from these side businesses, then paid out dividends on 1099-DIV, then
    > no unrelated business income?


    I don't know but I expect if the IRA is the controlling owner of this
    hypothetical C corporation, then, upon audit, the IRS would collapse
    the transactions and UBI would exist.

    My questions is why are there people so anxious to have their IRA
    invest in a business which, based on the typical outcome for startups,
    will probably fail so completely that the investors will get ZERO?

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Bill Brown, Jan 23, 2011
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Chris Andrews

    LLP and Limited Partnership

    Chris Andrews, Jan 2, 2007, in forum: Accounting
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    489
    Chris Andrews
    Jan 2, 2007
  2. Just_call_me_dusty
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    925
    Just_call_me_dusty
    Feb 5, 2004
  3. Kasupe
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    315
    Kasupe
    Feb 17, 2004
  4. TLC
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,223
    Paul Thomas, CPA
    Feb 19, 2007
  5. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    347
    Dick Watson
    Mar 10, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page