- 12 -
partnership income. We disagree. The issue in Culbertson was
whether to recognize a family partnership for Federal tax
purposes. Here, our inquiry is whether a particular activity was
within the scope of an existing partnership.
2. The Schedules K-1
Respondent contends that petitioners knew about Trisch’s
engineering income because Trisch reported that income on DRD’s
tax return, and allocated 50 percent of it to petitioner on the
Schedules K-1 which petitioner belatedly received from DRD. We
disagree. First, petitioner did not realize from the Schedules
K-1 that Trisch had engineering income. Second, knowledge of the
engineering income does not necessarily make it partnership
income. See Mayes v. United States, 207 F.2d 326 (10th Cir.
1953) (partners knew of wages from an accounting firm that were
found not to be partnership income); Mayes v. Commissioner, 21
T.C. 286, 288-289 (1953) (partners knew of income from services
provided as an airplane mechanic that was found not to be
partnership income).
3. The Rapid Manufacturing Sign
Respondent points out that petitioner testified that he
asked that a sign with the name Rapid Manufacturing on it be
placed at a business called Diversified Fabricators Insulators
and Constructors (DFIC), which respondent contends DRD owned.
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