- 7 - Kantor v. Commissioner, 998 F.2d 1514, 1521 (9th Cir. 1993), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1990-380. Petitioners rely on Cleveland v. Commissioner, 297 F.2d 169 (4th Cir. 1961), affg. in part, revg. in part and remanding 34 T.C. 517 (1960), and Green v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 667 (1984), to support their contention that petitioner was an active participant in RCC. In Cleveland, Mr. Cleveland, an attorney, formed an informal partnership with Hans Kerla, an inventor and chemist. Kerla was working on the development and commercialization of an inorganic binding material. Cleveland provided the funding, and Kerla performed the experiments. Id. at 170. Cleveland also used his business contacts to market Kerla's invention. Id. at 171. The Court of Appeals concluded that Cleveland and Kerla were involved in a joint venture: Each of the parties was to participate in the enterprise, Kerla giving his time and effort and Cleveland providing the necessary funds, and they were to share equally in the avails thereof. * * * Cleveland was thereafter engaging with Kerla in the trade or business of promoting the commercial development of the invention in which Cleveland was the owner of a participating one-half interest. Id. at 173-174. According to petitioners, petitioner was as active a participant in RCC as Mr. Cleveland was in his joint venture. However, they have not shown that petitioner's contribution to RCC was comparable to Mr. Cleveland's efforts on behalf of hisPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011