- 28 -
breeding activity at the JAC Ranch. The parties have not
addressed the question of whether the losses are correct in
amount or whether the activity was operated with the intent to
make a profit. Respondent’s position that petitioner was not a
joint venturer is based upon the record and certain other
factors. We agree with respondent that petitioner has failed to
show that the horse breeding activity was a joint venture between
petitioner and Mrs. Corrigan.
Initially, we note that the purported joint returns reflect
that the horse breeding activity was operated by Mrs. Corrigan as
a sole proprietorship. Her name alone was reflected on the
Schedules C. By contrast, petitioner’s name was the only one
reflected with respect to his claimed option trading activity.
This is a potent indication that Mrs. Corrigan was the sole
operator and proprietor of the horse breeding activity.
Respondent also points out that for a partnership or joint
venture to exist there should be (1) an agreement to share profit
and losses, (2) a community of interest in the undertaking, and
(3) a right of control over the activity. See, e.g., Joe
Balestrieri & Co. v. Commissioner, 177 F.2d 867, 871 (9th Cir.
1949) (similar Federal statutory requirements exist), affg. a
Memorandum Opinion of this Court; see also sec. 7701(b).
In that regard, petitioner has not shown that he had a right
to participate in management or to control the activities at the
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011