-28-
control of income and the purposes for which it is used, and any
other facts throwing light on their true intent. Id. at 742; see
also Luna v. Commissioner, 42 T.C. 1067, 1077-1078 (1964) (other
factors to consider include whether each party was a principal
and coproprietor, or whether one party was the agent or employee
of the other, receiving for his services contingent compensation
in the form of a percentage of income; whether the parties filed
Federal partnership returns or otherwise represented to
respondent or to persons with whom they dealt that they were
joint venturers; and whether the parties exercised mutual control
over and assumed mutual responsibilities for the enterprise).
The record in this case does not support petitioner’s
contention that a subchapter K partnership existed, for several
reasons. First, petitioner produced no evidence that he intended
to form a partnership with his attorney. The record contains
only an argument, made for the first time on brief, that a de
facto subchapter K partnership “existed” because of the
combination of his interest in his legal claims and his
attorney’s professional license. Second, contrary to the
position he advocated on brief, petitioner both testified at
trial and submitted to the Court as a stipulation of fact that he
“hired” his attorney “to represent him” in the settlement of his
legal claims and paid him for “services he rendered”,
demonstrating that petitioner did not view his attorney as a
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