- 6 - Federal law. Hensel Phelps Constr. Co. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 939, 947-948 (1980), affd. 703 F.2d 485 (10th Cir. 1983). In determining whether a partnership has been formed for tax purposes, the Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Culbertson, 337 U.S. 733, 742 (1949), held that the inquiry 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. * * * [Fn. ref. omitted.] The determination of whether the parties intended to enter into a partnership is a question of fact. See Commissioner v. Tower, 327 U.S. 280, 287 (1946). A joint venture has been defined as a special combination of two or more persons, where in some specific venture a profit is jointly sought without any actual partnership or corporate designation. Beck Chem. Equip. Corp. v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. 840, 848 (1957). The partnership analysis set out in Culbertson is equally applicable to determining whether a joint venture exists. Luna v. Commissioner, 42 T.C. 1067, 1077 (1964). As a result, we must determine whether State Savings and BCI intended to, and did, join together in the present conduct of such an enterprise.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011