SACRAMENTO SUNCREEK APARTMENTS v. CAMBRIDGE ADVANTAGED PROPERTIES Part-II
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>SACRAMENTO SUNCREEK APARTMENTS v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >SACRAMENTO</b><b<br /> > SUNCREEK<br /> APARTMENTS v. </b><b >CAMBRIDGE</b><b<br /> > ADVANTAGED<br /> PROPERTIES</b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/30/10<br /> <br/><b ><u> </u></b><br /> <br/><b ><u> </u></b><br /> <br/><b ><u> </u></b><br /> <br/><b ><u> </u></b><br /> <br/><b ><u>CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION</u></b><sup>*</sup><sup></sup><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL<br /> OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/>THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/>(Sacramento)<br /> <br/>----<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=394 valign=top ><br /> <br/>SACRAMENTO<br /> SUNCREEK APARTMENTS, LLC, et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiffs and Appellants,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>CAMBRIDGE<br /> ADVANTAGED PROPERTIES II, L.P., et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendants and Respondents.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=230 valign=top ><br /> <br/>C060886<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>(Super.<br /> Ct. No. 05AS02621)<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >STORY CONTINUE <br /> FROM PART I….</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>In support of their argument, plaintiffs cite a number of<br /> out-of-state cases where the courts permitted taxation of a nonresident limited<br /> partner on income earned by the partnership in the forum state. (See, e.g., ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 62 s<br /> XIPGHO000026 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "<i >Borden Chems. & Plastics, L.P. v.<br /> Zehnder<SoftRt></i>(2000)<br /> 726 N.E.2d 73" <i<br /> >Borden </i><i >Chems</i><i >. &<br /> Plastics, L.P. v. Zehnder</i> (2000) 726 N.E.2d 73;<br /> ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 58 s<br /> XIPGHO000027 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "<i >Department of Revenue v.<br /> Sledge<SoftRt></i>(2000)<br /> 528 S.E.2d 260, 262" <i<br /> >Department of Revenue v. Sledge</i> (2000)<br /> 528 S.E.2d 260, 262.) However, in<br /> none of these cases did the court go on to find a nonresident limited partner<br /> was subject to personal jurisdiction in the forum state solely because he was<br /> subject to taxation in that state. <br /> <br/> We are not<br /> surprised. Limited partnerships are<br /> treated as associations of individuals for income tax purposes but as discrete<br /> entities for other purposes. A limited<br /> partnership â€