Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/323820.opn.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,317 chars

borne by an efficient dentist would be higher than it would be if she or he were practicing

alone. Second, the partners' projection ofthe overhead factor might prove in a given

year to be too high or too low, with the result that Dr. Armand might receive a higher

profit percentage or a lower percentage in some years than Drs. Loretta and Louise. 1o

The prospect of un shared loss on which the department focused and that the ALJ

relied upon as a basis for its conclusion that there was not a partnership, was the prospect

that one of the daughters would simply not work. The hypothetical assumed that

overhead would remain the same and fall disproportionately on Dr. Armand. The

hypothetical was pure conjecture. Dr. Louise testified that she had never taken a month

off and the income statements in evidence demonstrated that Drs. Loretta and Louise

were successful professionals, producing a substantial portion of the collected revenues

of the practice.

Here, as with profit-sharing, the more a loss-sharing arrangement deviates from

what is equal or what can otherwise be defended as reasonable among partners, the more

likely it will not be viewed as consistent with the intent "to carry on as co-owners a

business for profit." RCW 25.05.055(1). If a loss contingency is either (1) theoretically