-25-
“one event relationship” with his attorney--provide no meaningful
distinction from Banks.
b. Petitioner’s Subchapter K Partnership Argument
Petitioner also contends that the portion of the settlement
amount used to pay his attorney’s fees is not includable in his
gross income because a de facto subchapter K partnership existed
between petitioner and his attorney. Petitioner argues that he
combined his rights in his settlement recovery with his
attorney’s professional license, that “The gross income produced
by the partnership (settlement monies from the defendants) could
not have occurred without the partnership”, and that the
relationship between petitioner and his attorney “is analogous to
the horse owner and trainer in McDougal v. Commissioner, 62 T.C.
720 (1974) in which the court determined that a joint venture
resulted.” We reject petitioner’s attempt to avoid Federal
income taxation of the portion of the settlement amount he paid
to his attorney by labeling his relationship with his attorney a
subchapter K partnership.
14(...continued)
contention in this case.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011