Wheeler v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
37 T.C.M. 883 (1978)
Facts
Richard Wheeler (plaintiff) and Ainslie Perrault went into business together to develop real estate. Wheeler provided the real estate development knowledge, and Perrault provided the finances. Wheeler and Perrault’s business agreement (the agreement) stated that they were creating a joint venture to develop and manage property together. Under the agreement, the initial profits from the business were to go to Perrault to repay his initial investment. Subsequent profits would be split, with Wheeler receiving 25 percent and Perrault receiving 75 percent. The agreement further specified that all property would be in Perrault’s name and that Perrault would bear all the business’s losses. Wheeler reported his share of the profits on his income-tax return as long-term capital gain made through a joint venture. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner) (defendant) assessed a deficiency against Wheeler, arguing that his profit was income rather than long-term capital gain. The Commissioner believed that Wheeler was an employee of Perrault’s rather than a business partner. The Commissioner argued that under the terms of the agreement, Wheeler did not bear the business’s losses or hold title to its property. Wheeler petitioned the United States Tax Court for a redetermination.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Irwin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 705,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,400 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
