- 15 -
Plaza satisfactorily from May 1998 to July 2002. The rent was
$695.00 per month.”
The expenses evidenced by the above-mentioned phone bills
and utility bills appear, from the text of the bills, to be
incurred not for the business, “Your Future Style”, but for
“Kiddy Cuts and Styles”. The record is not entirely clear as to
the transition of business operations from “Kiddy Cuts and
Styles” to “Your Future Style”. However, we surmise the
following facts. It appears that out of convenience and for “bad
credit” reasons, petitioner transferred the utility and phone
accounts from “Kiddy Cuts and Styles” to his business. In doing
so, he did not change the name of the business on the utility and
phone account official records. Petitioner’s testimony and Ms.
Lewis’s Forms 1040 establish that “Kiddy Cuts and Styles” ceased
business operations in 1998 and that the charges shown on the
above-mentioned phone bills and utility bills were, in fact,
incurred in the operation of the business, “Your Future Style”.
At first glance, the business relationship between Ms. Lewis
and petitioner outwardly resembles a joint venture or a
partnership. Whether a valid partnership exists for Federal
income tax purposes is governed by Federal law. See Commissioner
v. Culbertson, 337 U.S. 733 (1949).
As pertinent here, a partnership for Federal income tax
purposes is defined in section 761(a) as “a * * * joint venture
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011