- 11 -
partner earned income as part of the partnership’s activity or on
his own.
Respondent contends that the engineering income that Trisch
earned doing business as DRD from 1989 through 1993 was DRD
partnership income. We disagree. Petitioner, Trisch, and Pace
established DRD as a partnership to buy and hold rental real
estate. Trisch’s engineering services were outside the scope of
his partnership with petitioner. Petitioner and Trisch did not
combine their money or labor to provide engineering services, and
there was no community of interest in the profits or losses from
engineering services. Trisch and Lashley concealed Trisch’s
engineering services activities from petitioners, used the
engineering income for personal purposes, and concealed from
petitioners income and assets that they bought with that income.
Petitioner did not receive any benefit from the income from
engineering services. He did not intend that the engineering
income be a DRD activity because he did not know about that
activity.
Respondent speculates that Trisch’s real purpose in
concealing income may have been to conceal it or DRD’s assets
from his former spouse. There is no evidence to support that
theory.
Respondent contends that, under Commissioner v. Culbertson,
337 U.S. 733, 741-742 (1949), Trisch’s engineering services were
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011