Which of the following is true of capital deficiency in the liquidation of a partnership

[This article distinguishes on General rule and Garner v Murray rule, in sharing of deficiency of capital on account of insolvency of the partner(s)]

Capital deficiency means that one or more partner has a debit balance in his/their capital account at the point of final cash distribution.  The capital deficiency may arise from liquidation losses, excessive withdrawals before liquidation or recurring losses in prior periods. A partner with a capital deficiency must cover the deficit by paying cash into partnership. When a partner is not in a position to pay deficiency of capital due to insolvency, the remaining partners with credit balances shall absorb such partner’s debt according to their income and loss sharing ratio. This is called the capital loss of the individual partners due to the default of other partners.

However, there is no uniform opinion on whether to apply the losses on account of capital deficiency of a partner who is insolvent, as an ordinary trading loss to the firm, or it should be treated as a loss to the remaining partners individually and not to the firm. Prior to the decision in the  famous Garner v/s Murray case,  it was the general rule practiced by the partnership firms that any whenever capital deficiency arise due to default of  one of the partners, such loss is treated as ordinary business loss and the remaining partners used to bear the loss in the proportions in which they shared profits and losses of a firm.

But in the case Garner v Murray (1904), it was held by the court that the loss on account of capital deficiency of an insolvent partner is a CAPITAL loss to the solvent partners and it is not a business loss to the firm. Hence, the solvent partners were asked to bear the loss at the ratio of their capitals standing (not at the rate of income and loss sharing) in the balance sheet on the date of dissolution of the firm. The above ruling of the court is popularly known as Garner v Murray rule across the globe.

In India, many people think that the ruling of Garner v/s Murray case may not be applicable in India. But in the absence of any concrete court ruling in India clarifying the position  in above situation or anything in Indian Partnership Act that goes against the rule laid down in the above case, many partnership agreements include a  clause that Garner v/s Murray rule is not applicable to their partnership business and all the solvent partners are agreeable to make the necessary contribution to the partnership  in case of the deficit balance on their capital accounts at the end of the dissolution of a partnership which will be according to their income and loss sharing ratio.

Related articles

1. Legal rights of minor as a partner
2. Active, Sleeping partner & partners of different types
3. Different Partnership models in business
4. Legal aspects of partnership business

Choose the best answer for each of the following questions.

1		In a limited liability partnership liquidation, the final cash distribution to partners is made in accordance with the:
		A)	Partners' income-sharing ratio
		B)	Balances of partners' capital accounts
		C)	Ratio of original investments by partners
		D)	Ratio of original investments less withdrawals by partners
2		The partners of Dawes & Epps LLP share net income and losses equally. Both Dawes and Epps are insolvent. At the time they decided to liquidate the limited liability partnership, its balance sheet included the following: cash, $1,000; other assets, $19,000; liabilities, $8,000; Dawes capital, $3,000; and Epps capital, $9,000. The other assets realized $12,000 and the liabilities were paid. The amount Epps received from the liquidation of the partnership was:
		A)	$6,500
		B)	$5,500
		C)	$5,000
		D)	$2,500
		E)	Some other amount
3		On January 1, 2002, the partners of Snell & Thomas LLP had capital account balances of $40,000 and $20,000, respectively. They shared net income and losses equally, and the partnership had a net income of $10,000 during 2002. On December 31, 2002, the partnership was liquidated. If, after realization of noncash assets and payment of liabilities, $30,000 remained for distribution to the partnership, Snell received:
		A)	$15,000
		B)	$20,000
		C)	$25,000
		D)	$30,000
		E)	Some other amount
4		After realization of a portion of the noncash assets of Saul, Tapp & Uris LLP, which is being liquidated, the capital account balances were Saul, $35,000; Tapp, $40,000; and Uris, $43,000. Cash of $42,000 and other assets with a carrying amount of $78,000 were on hand. Creditors' claims totaled $2,000. The partners shared net income and losses equally. The cash that may be paid to Uris at this time is:
		A)	$43,000
		B)	$17,000
		C)	$14,000
		D)	$13,333
		E)	Some other amount
5		The partners of Lon & Mab LLP share net income and losses equally. After the realization of all noncash assets and payment of all liabilities, Lon had a capital account balance of $3,800, and Mab had a capital deficit of $3,800. Lon has personal assets of $30,000 and personal liabilities of $35,000; Mab has personal assets of $20,000 and personal liabilities of $18,000. The total amount that personal creditors of Lon should expect to receive after marshaling of assets is:
		A)	$35,000
		B)	$33,800
		C)	$32,000
		D)	$30,000
		E)	Some other amount
6		The partners of Cey, Doy & Ebb LLP had capital account balances of $40,000, $50,000, and $18,000, respectively, and an income-sharing ratio of 4:2:1, respectively. If Cey received only $8,000 on the liquidation of the partnership, the total amount received by all the partners on liquidation was:
		A)	$108,000
		B)	$56,000
		C)	$52,000
		D)	$24,000
		E)	Some other amount
7		Assume the same facts as in question 6, except that Cey received $26,000 on liquidation. How much cash did Ebb receive from the liquidation?
		A)	$26,000
		B)	$18,000
		C)	$14,500
		D)	$14,000
		E)	Some other amount
8		Clark Corporation invested $100,000 in a real estate corporate joint venture on January 2, 2002. During 2002, Clark received $9,500 from the joint venture, and its share of joint venture net income (after depreciation) was $12,000. The depreciation expense applicable to Clark's share of net income was $4,000. Clark values its joint-venture investment in its December 31, 2002, balance sheet (under the equity method of accounting) at:
		A)	$116,000
		B)	$112,000
		C)	$102,500
		D)	$100,000
		E)	Some other amount
9		On January 2, 2002, Bur, Cam & Dee LLP was organized, with Cam and Dee each investing $100,000 cash and Bur investing $75,000 cash, with a commitment to invest an additional $25,000 cash on January 2, 2004. However, on December 31, 2002, the partners agreed to liquidate the insolvent limited liability partnership, which had liabilities totaling $410,000 on that date but assets at current fair value, including a $25,000 loan receivable from Bur, of only $200,000. Bur has a personal net worth of $750,000, but Cam and Dee are both insolvent. Because Bur is the partner responsible for the partnership's insolvency, Bur's maximum liability for unpaid partnership liabilities is:
		A)	$95,000
		B)	$185,000
		C)	$210,000
		D)	$235,000
		E)	Some other amount
10		Refer to the facts in question 9. If Bur were a limited partner, Bur's maximum obligation for unpaid limited partnership liabilities would be:
		A)	$0
		B)	$25,000
		C)	$210,000
		D)	$235,000
		E)	Some other amount
11		In liquidation of limited partnership, which items would receive priority A) general partner B) Outside creditors C) Equities of limited partnership The priority would be as follows:
		A)	A,B,C
		B)	C,A,B
		C)	B,C,A
		D)	B,A,C
12		Joint ventures are employed for many projects such as:
		A)	Development of real estate
		B)	Exploration for oil and gas
		C)	Construction of bridges
		D)	All of the above
13		The liquidation of a limited liability partnership means winding up its activities, usually by selling assets, paying liabilities, and distributing any remaining cash to the partners.
		A)	True
		B)	False
14		All creditors must have been paid before distribution of cash.
		A)	True
		B)	False
15		If the partner is unable to pay the deficit in their capital account the deficit must be absorbed by other partners.
		A)	True
		B)	False
16		Inability of a partner to pay the partnership for a capital deficit may cause additional loss to the other partners.
		A)	True
		B)	False
17		In installment Payments assume a total loss on all remaining non-cash assets and provide for all possible losses, including potential liquidation costs and unrecorded liabilities.
		A)	True
		B)	False

What is capital deficiency in partnership?

What is the effect of capital deficiency?

What happens in a partnership liquidation?

What is capital deficiency answer?