- 34 -
prove the existence of an agreement to join in a joint venture to
share profits or losses or both as required by Commissioner v.
Tower, 327 U.S. 280 (1946). Rather, it reflects a continuation
of the prior understanding or course of dealing between
petitioner and Crocus to have their resources available at
specific times and places to conduct foreign trade shows.
The existence or lack of a written agreement is not
determinative of whether a joint venture existed between
petitioner and Crocus. Sierra Club v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. at
324; Cohen v. Commissioner, 15 T.C. 261, 272 (1950) (The absence
of an express agreement to share in losses is not material, since
such an agreement may be implied from their agreement to share
profits). In Beck Chem. Equip. Corp. v. Commissioner, 27 T.C.
840 (1957), we found there was a joint venture on the basis of an
oral agreement between the parties.
Even though petitioner claims there was an oral agreement
between petitioner and Crocus to an equal split of net profits
from foreign trade shows conducted from 1990 to 1996, petitioner
has not introduced any documentary or testimonial evidence of the
existence of any such alleged oral agreement. Petitioner has
provided no evidence to show that it and Crocus did in fact split
net profits equally.
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011