Hughes A. and Marilyn B. Bagley - Page 27

                                                - 27 -                                                  

            receives contingent compensation in the form of a percentage of income for his              
            services rendered to the other party.                                                       
                  Based on the record, we find that there is nothing to indicate that the               
            parties intended the contingency fee arrangement to be a joint venture or                   
            partnership.  Mr. Rawlings testified that he regarded the agreement between                 
            himself and petitioner as nothing more than an arrangement for the payment for              
            his services.  Petitioner did not testify with respect to the fee agreement.                
            There is, therefore, no testimony whatsoever that either party intended to                  
            form a partnership.  Petitioner did not report any profit or loss from any                  
            partnership with Mr. Rawlings, but instead claimed a miscellaneous itemized                 
            deduction for attorney's fees paid.  We, therefore, find petitioner's argument              
            to be without merit.                                                                        
                  Petitioner also argues that the $50-per-hour portion of the legal fees                
            he paid is deductible as a Schedule C expense under section 162, since                      
            petitioner was "defending his professional name and attempting to protect his               
            occupation as a consultant to the meat packing industry."  There is no                      
            Schedule C attached to petitioner's 1987 return.  There is attached a Form                  
            2106, Employee Business Expenses.  Petitioner has made no showing of any                    
            connection of the IBP litigation with a consulting business, if any, in which               
            he was engaged in 1987 or any other year.  Therefore, to the extent the IBP                 
            litigation costs are deductible, they are deductible either as employee                     
            business expenses or expenses incurred for the production of income.  A                     
            deduction for either such expense is a miscellaneous itemized deduction,                    
            allowable only to the extent that the total of such deductions exceeds 2                    
            percent of adjusted gross income.  See McKay v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 465,                 
            493 (1994).                                                                                 
                  Petitioner contends that the statutorily-imposed interest received on                 
            the amount of the judgment he received on account of the personal injury he                 
            suffered, should be excludable from income.  This issue has been before us on               





Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011