- 23 -
stocks and no short-term capital gains. On the facts presented,
we conclude that Birnie and Elizabeth were not in a business
partnership but were merely co-owners of the 3,220 shares of
Hondo stock. See King v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 445, 458-459
(1987) (an investor is never considered to be engaged in a trade
or business with respect to his investment activities).
It has long been settled in Oklahoma that joint ownership of
real or personal property does not necessarily constitute a
partnership. Logan v. Oklahoma Mill Co., 79 P. 103 (Okla. 1904).
Similarly, “Investment in oil and gas leases as cotenants or co-
owners gives no presumption of the existence of partnership. In
fact, it is presumed, in the absence of a contrary showing, such
ownership is merely a cotenancy.” Singer v. Singer, supra at 771
n.11 (citations omitted).
Petitioner places great reliance on Ryza v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1977-64, in which this Court found two individuals
were engaged in a partnership for Federal tax purposes. Ryza is
distinguishable from the instant case. First, Ryza used Federal
tax principles to determine if a partnership existed; in the
instant case we look to Oklahoma law because the question of
whether a partnership existed is relevant to determine if Birnie
had a sufficient property interest such that she could make a
gift of Hondo stock. Second, even if we were to look to Federal
tax cases for guidance, Ryza involved two taxpayers who conducted
several businesses (buying, repairing, and selling Volkswagens,
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011