- 70 -
Commissioner, supra: that the contingent fee arrangement is (1)
like a partnership or joint venture or (2) a division of property
or transfer of a one-third interest in real estate, thereafter
leased to a tenant.
We rejected the first point in Bagley v. Commissioner, 105
T.C. 396, 418-419 (1995), affd. on other issues 121 F.2d 393 (8th
Cir. 1997), in holding that a contingent fee agreement does not
create a partnership or joint venture under section 7701(a)(2)
(see further discussion infra part 10).
The citation by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
of Wodehouse v. Commissioner, 177 F.2d 881, 884 (2d Cir. 1949),
raises doubts about the second point. Wodehouse is just another
case that illustrates the proposition, see Chirelstein, Federal
Income Taxation 203 (8th ed. 1999), that interests in self-
created property rights, such as paintings, patents, and
copyrights, “are effectively assignable for tax purposes despite
the elements of personal services on the part of the assignor.”
Id.42
5. Significance of Control in Supreme Court’s
Assignment of Income Jurisprudence
The transfers of income or property at issue in the classic
cases on which the dissent of Judge Wisdom and this Court have
relied–-cases such as Lucas v. Earl, supra, and Helvering v.
42 A recent case that illustrates the proposition is Meisner
v. United States, 133 F.3d 654 (8th Cir. 1998).
Page: Previous 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011