- 7 -
"join together their money, goods, labor, or skill for the
purpose of carrying on a trade, profession, or business and when
there is community of interest in the profits and losses."
Commissioner v. Tower, 327 U.S. 280, 286 (1946). The existence
of the requisite purpose is a question of fact that turns on the
parties' intent. Commissioner v. Culbertson, 337 U.S. 733, 742
(1949). Moreover, while the existence or nonexistence of a
partnership under common law or State law may be relevant,
Federal law controls classification for Federal tax purposes.
Estate of Kahn v. Commissioner, 499 F.2d 1186 (2d Cir. 1974),
affg. Grober v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1972-240; Luna v.
Commissioner, 42 T.C. 1067, 1077 (1964); sec. 1.761-1(a), Income
Tax Regs.
There are several factors to be weighed in determining
whether a partnership exists, none of which alone is
determinative. Alhouse v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-652,
affd. sub nom. Bergford v. Commissioner, 12 F.3d 166 (9th Cir.
1993). The test is whether:
considering all the facts--the agreement, the conduct of the
parties in execution of its provisions, their statements,
the testimony of disinterested persons, the relationship of
the parties, their respective abilities and capital
contributions, the actual control of income and the purposes
for which it is used, and any other facts throwing light on
their true intent--the parties in good faith and acting with
a business purpose intended to join together in the present
conduct of the enterprise. [Commissioner v. Culbertson,
supra at 742; fn. ref. omitted]
Petitioner argues that she and Daro operated Orad as a
partnership. Petitioner notes that she and Daro each signed the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011