text:
An album of designs by William Farrell on paper watermarked 1814 and 1817 is in the Houghton Library, Harvard University, ref. RAN 1/N/4.(14) Plans, sections and elevations by Farrell for outbuildings at Glanmore Castle, Co. Wicklow, 1815, are in the IAA, Acc. 88/90.
Aged and Infirm Carpenters' Asylum (founded 1832): president from 1835(15) or earlier until 1842(16) or later.
Addresses:(20) 61 Queen Street, 1812; 11 Kildare Street, 1813-21; 46 St Stephen's Green, 1823-26; 55 St Stephens' Green East, 1827-33; 33 Dawson Street and Sydney Lodge, 1835; 2 Ely Place, 1836-37; 17 Merrion Row, 1839; 112 Baggot Street Lower, 1839;(21) 113 Baggot Street Lower, 1843 until death.
(1) Board of Works minutes, 30 Dec 1808, 20 Jul,16 Aug 1810 (IAA, Edward McParland files, Acc. 2008/44); the circumstances of his dismissal are decribed in full by Patricia McCarthy & Kevin V. Mulligan, 'New light on Ballyfin', Irish Architectural and Decorative Studies 8 (2005), 92-93.
(2) Letter from Rolf Loeber to E. McParland, 9 Nov 1973 (IAA, Edward McParland files, Acc. 2008/44).
(3) 'An alphabetical list of the Freemen of the City of Dublin, 1774-1824', The Irish Ancestor XV (1983), Nos. 1 & 2, 52; his admission was by Grace Especial rather than birth or service.
(4) Gentleman's and Citizen's Amanack (1814), 185.
(5) See Wilson's Dublin Directory, 1824, 135. A descendant of Farrell's pupil Sandham Symes, William Harvey, 86 Beechwood Drive, Broomhill, Glasgow, holds the following drawings by Farrell which appear to relate to his responsibilities as architect for the province of Armagh: undated plan and elevations for a neo-Norman cathedral, signed William Farrell, Architect; unsigned, undated plan and elevations (in same hand) for a Gothic cathedral; unsigned, undated west elevation of a church with a square tower and side entrances.
(6) North West Ulster, 64.
(7) Royal Dublin Society Proceedings 76/41 (IAA, Edward McParland files, Acc. 2008/44).
(8) RIAI council meeting minutes, 18 Nov 1851, 94; general meeting minutes, 18 Dec 1851, 99; B 9, 20 Dec 1851, 805.
(9) Information about Farrell's marriage and the baptisms of several of their children is from Irish Genealogy, http://churchrecords.irishgenealogy.ie (last visited, Feb 2014).
(10) G.D. Burtchaell & T.U. Sadleir, eds., Alumni Dublinenses (1935), I, 274.
(11) During the 1830s Wilson's and the Post Office directories list the practice as 'William Farrell & Sons', but a drawing for Dromore church, Co. Tyrone, dated October 1839, in RCB, Portfolio 3A is signed 'William Farrell & Son, 112 Baggot St Lwr, Dublin'.
(12) RIA, Haliday Pamphlets 1542/7 (photocopy in IAA).
(13) IB 36, 15 Jul 1894, 169.
(14) See John Harris, A Catalogue of British Drawings for Architecture, Decoration, Sculpture and Landscape Gardening 1550-1900 in American Collections (1971), 96-97.
(15) Freeman's Journal, 23 Nov 1835.
(16) Pettigrew & Oulton's and Thom's Directories.
(17) Account of inaugural meeting in Civil Engineer & Architect's Journal 2 (Oct 1839), 394.
(18) RIAI council meeting minutes, 12 Dec 1842, 19.
(19) Typescript list of RIAI officers in IAA; RIAI report, 21 Nov 1850 (IAA, Edward McParland files, Acc. 2008/44).
(20) From Wilson's, Post Office, Pettigrew & Oulton's and Thom's directories unles otherwise indicated.
(21) See note 7, above.
Refs: Elevation in William Farrell album, Houghton Library, Harvard University (ref: RAN 1/N/4) no. 60; see John Harris, A Catalogue of British Drawings for Architecture, Decoration, Sculpture and Landscape Gardening 1550-1900 in American Collections (1971), 97.
Nature: Scheme by Charles Lilly, 1790, apparently completed by Farrell, who made extensive additions, including E. wing and stair hall at the rear. For Andrew Nugent.
Nature: Outbuildings, for Francis Synge.
Refs: Plans, sections & elevations, dated 1815, in IAA, Glanmore Castle drawings, Acc. 88/90.
Refs: Ground and gallery plans and N. elevation in William Farrell album, Houghton Library, Harvard University (ref: RAN 1/N/4) nos. 3-5; see John Harris, A Catalogue of British Drawings for Architecture, Decoration, Sculpture and Landscape Gardening 1550-1900 in American Collections (1971), 96; Samuel Lewis, A Topographical dictionary of Ireland (1837), II, 595; exterior illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 298.
Refs: Site plan and plan of school house &c, former dated Dec 1815, in collection of Church of Ireland Training College, Rathmines.
Nature: Submits plans for alts.
Nature: Designs for addition of Gothic chapel wing and offices to existing classical block.
Nature: 'The church has been lately re-built after a design suggested by Mr French [i.e.Michael Frederick Trench], of Heywood...skilfully carried into effect by Mr. Farrel, architect' (Brewer). 'The church, completed in 1818 by aid of a loan of £2500 from the late Board of First Fruits is a handsome building of hewn stone in the pointed style of architecture: the interior is fitted up neatly but without any display of ornamental decoration; a gallery, in which is an organ, extends across the west end; the east window is of modern painted glass. The belfry tower is that of the former church, which was allowed to remain when the rest of the edifeice was taken down; it stands a little detached from the main building.'(Lewis).
Refs: J.N. Brewer, Beauties of Ireland (1825), I, 246; Samuel Lewis, A Topographical dictionary of Ireland (1837), 584.
Nature: New church built 1819 at cost of £1,569.4s.7¼d. WF corresponds with Primate Beresford about it. Did he design it?
Refs: NLI, special list 155 (IAA, Edward McParland files, Acc.2008/44); J.B. Leslie, Armagh Clergy & Parishes (1911), 377; illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 128.
Nature: Tenders invited for carrying out alterations to designs by WF.
Refs: Freeman's Journal, 23 Jul 1819.
Nature: New glebe house opposite church for Rev. James Spencer Knox. Cost £4,000; 'gaunt cubic house' (Rowan).
Nature: Large classical house incorporating earlier parts, for Sir Henry Brooke, Bt. Contractors: Colborne & Richards.
Refs: Indenture between Thomas Colbourne of Camden Street, Dublin, and Richard Richards of Roscommon, builders, and Henry Brooke of Colebrooke, for the building of a new house at Colebrooke, to be finished by 1 January 1823, for £9,700: 0: 0d., to the satisfaction of William Farrell, architect, and bond of indemnity from Thomas Colbourne, Richard Richards and John Murphy to Henry Brooke [20 June 1820] in PRONI, Landed Estates Courts rentals, D3004/B/8 also T1042/41 (see PRONI e-catalogue); specification and account of charges, 1820, in PRONI, T1042/39 (see PRONI e-catalogue); A. Day, P. McWilliams & L. English, eds., Ordnance Survey Memoirs of Ireland 4 (1990), 7; Alistair Rowan, The Buildings of Ireland: North West Ulster (1979), 200-201.
Nature: Executed to designs of WF (winner of competition?). Plaque in hall has inscr. 'Architect William Farrell. Opened 3 Oct 1820'.
Refs: Plans and elevations in William Farrell album, Houghton Library, Harvard University (ref: RAN 1/N/4) nos. 11-14; see John Harris, A Catalogue of British Drawings for Architecture, Decoration, Sculpture and Landscape Gardening 1550-1900 in American Collections (1971), 96 (photographs in IAA); side elvation in posession of William Harvey (a descendant of Farrell's pupil Sandham Symes), 86 Beechwood Drive, Broomhill, Glasgow .
Nature: Attributed to WF by Williams.
Nature: Remodelled by WF at cost of £3,000.. Work supervised by Henry Lambert. Contractor: Baker, Williams & Cockburn.
Nature: New church in Tudor idiom. WF reports on old church (built 1698-1701) in 1819. Architect for rebuilding, begun Aug 1821 with grant of £3,850 from Board of First Fruits. Contractor: Abel Bass. Bass's estimate of £107.10s.8d. for building wall round churchyard accepted Jul 1822, as also Charles Gibbons's estimate of £265 for railings. church consecrated, 12 Dec 1824.
Refs: Alice M. Best, 'St Paul's Parish, Dublin', JRSAI 104 (1974), 24; Clergy of Dublin and Glendalough (Ulster Historical Foundation, 2001), 219; Christine Casey, The Buildings of Ireland: Dublin (2005), 241.
Nature: By WF and John Meason, for Henry Halton.
Refs: Christine Casey, The Buildings of Ireland: Dublin (2005), 607.
Nature: Plans for offices by WF, 1823.
Nature: New church replacing earlier one; 'it was built at an expense of about £3500, of which £1022 was a loan and £900 a gift, in 1822, from the late Board of First Fruits' (Lewis).
Nature: Large classical house and two gate lodges, main lodge based on design by Henry Hakewill for Blenheim Palace. For 2nd Marquess of Ely. House blown up in 1970.
Nature: New court house which 'may be attributed with confidence to William Farrell in view of its similarity to his designs for Carrick-on-Shannon though the Parliamentary Gazetteer says it is...after a design by Bowden'. (Bowden died in 1822.) Mulligan gives court house to WF but says that Bowden had 'proposed a design, but died in 1822'.
Refs: C.E.B. Brett, Court Houses and Market Houses of the Province of Ulster (UAHS, 1973), 55(illus.),56; Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013),252.
Nature: WF prepares designs for house and offices for perpetual curacy of Balleek.
Refs: 3 sheets of drawings (plans, section, elevation), signed and dated Jul 1825, in PRONI, DIO/4/22/7/14 (see PRONI e-catalogue).
Nature: New church. Tenders to be submitted to 'Architect of the Board of First Fruits [for] Armagh, 55 St Stephen's Green', March 1825. Loan of £784.12s.3¾d. from Board of First Fruits.
Nature: New hall and tower church erected to standard William Farrell design.
Nature: New kitchen. Contractor: Sinclair Carroll (£475.4s.5d).
Nature: Erected as chapel-of-ease to St Peter's church; 'an unpretending edifice of grey stone' (Bassett). Tenders invited Apr 1827. FS laid 10 Dec 1827. Corporation donated £300. Board of First Fruits donated £900 in 1829.
Nature: Simple Gothic, hall and tower type, with tower and spire. Built with loan of £1500 from Board of First Fruits and £800 from Rev. Gray Porter. Opened for worship by Dec 1828.
Refs: Angélique Day & Patrick McWilliams, eds.Ordnance Survey Memoirs of Ireland, Vol. 14: Parishes of Co. Fermanagh 1834-5 (1992), 37; J.B. Leslie, Clogher Clergy and Parishes (1929), 165; Alistair Rowan, The Buildings of Ireland: North West Ulster (1979), 320-321; illus. in Clergy of Clogher (Ulster Historical Foundation, 2006), 38; illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 148.
Nature: Completion of tower by 'Cobden and Sands' of London to design by William Farrell.
Refs: Clergy of Down and Dromore (Ulster Historical Foundation, 1996), Part 1, 102; J. Frederick Rankin, Down Cathedral (1997), 123.
Nature: 2-storey Classical block, for Theophilus Lucas-Clements. Described in OS memoir for parish of Drung as 'lately erected...a beautiful modern mansion'.
Refs: Ainsworth Report, 406 (E.McP); Angélique Day & Patrick McWilliams, Ordnance Survey Memoirs of Ireland, Vol. 40: Counties of South Ulster 1834-8, 21; Mark Bence-Jones, Burke’s Guide to Country Houses. Volume I, Ireland. (London, 1978), 239(illus.); Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 560.
Building: KEVIN V. MULLIGAN, THE BUILDINGS OF IRELAND: SOUTH ULSTER (2013), 115, PL.79.
Nature: Rebuilding of church originally designed by Francis Johnston (except for tower) with side aisles, balconies and probably new roof.
Refs: Plans in PRONI T1257/1,2 (see PRONI e-catalogue); R. McKinstry, R. Oram, R. Weatherup and P. Wilson, The Buildings of Armagh (UAHS, 1992), 134-5; Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 115, Pl.79; illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 120.
Nature: Addition of N aisle.
Refs: Fred Rankin, ed., Clergy of Down and Dromore , 97(illus.); exterior also illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 190.
Nature: Addition 'according to plans by Mr Farrell, architect to Board of First Fruits'. £300 granted by Board of First Fruits for same 1830.
Refs: Drogheda Journal, 29 May 1830; Samuel Lewis, A Topographical dictionary of Ireland (1837), I, 584; Christine Casey & Alistair Rowan, The Buildings of Ireland: North Leinster (1993), 276.
Nature: New chapel-of-ease for 400 persons for Tynan parish built 1830 at cost of about £1,600. Given to WF by Mulligan.
Refs: RIA, OS memoirs, Box 18 (or see Angélique Day & Patrick McWilliams, Ordnance Survey Memoirs of Ireland, Vol. 1: Parishes of Co. Armagh, 1835-9, 125); Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 382; illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 126.
Nature: Built as a dower house for Colebrooke Park 'presumably also by Farrell'. For Sir Henry Brooke.
Nature: 'The new parochial church, erected in the townland of Laragh in the year 1831, is a neat oblong building, capable of accommodating about 250 parishioners.'(OS Memoirs). Design given to William Farrell by Mulligan.
Refs: Angélique Day & Patrick McWilliams, Ordnance Survey Memoirs of Ireland, Vol. 1: Parishes of Co. Armagh, 1835-9, 41; Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 536; exterior illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 242.
Refs: Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 447.
Nature: New church, consecrated 1831. 3-bay hall with bellcote, angle buttresses and porch.
Refs: Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 500; illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 126.
Nature: New church. £1000 donated by Countess of Rossmore, loan of £2000 from Board of First Fruits, £1000 bequeathed by Mrs Jackson; remainder raised by subscription. Site next to existing church approved, Jan 1831. Church opened, 24 Feb 1836. Builder: John Clarke.
Refs: St Patrick's Church, Monaghan (illustrated booklet published by St Patrick's Church post 2002), 5-6; Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 465-6, Pl.62.
Nature: WF makes proposals for rebuilding, not carried out. For 2nd Marquess of Abercorn.
Nature: Hall and tower church erected at expense of Jane, Dowager Countess of Rosse (£2,000).
Refs: Inscr. on church giving architect's name and date; Samuel Lewis, A Topographical dictionary of Ireland (1837), II, 65; Christine Casey & Alistair Rowan, The Buildings of Ireland: North Leinster (1993), 276; exterior illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 250.
Nature: New church, 'a very neat building , by a gift of £900 from the late Board of First Fruits' (Lewis). 'One of William Farrell's ubiquitous single-cell designs' (Mulligan). 3-bay nave, short chancel, bellcote and battlemented porch on W front.
Refs: Samuel Lewis, A Topographical dictionary of Ireland (1837), II, 415; Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 576 exterior illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 246.
Nature: New church, 'resembling in front one of the grand altars of York Minster', built on ground given by Lord Charlemont. WF corresponded with Primate Beresford about it. Did he design it?
Refs: NLI, special list 155 (IAA, Edward McParland files, Acc.2008/44); Slater's Irish Directory (1846); Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 263.
Nature: New chapel-of-ease for parish of Killeshandra.. Loan of £800 from Board of First Fruits and donation of £100 from Lord Farnham. 'The standard three-bay single-cell design, here in the service of the parish of Killeshandra.' (Mulligan).
Refs: Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 142; Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 243(illus.).
Nature: New church. 5-bay hall and chancel with 3-bay W front.
Refs: Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 362; illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 121..
Nature: New market house for 2nd Earl of Leitrim. Builder: James Creddan, Enniskillen.
Refs: A.P.W. Malcomson, The Clements Archive (Dublin: Irish Manuscripts Commission, 2010), 3,389,582.
Nature: Small Gothic church, 'built to a standard design' by WF.
Refs: Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 330; illus. in Clergy of Clogher (Ulster Historical Foundation, 2006), 54.
Nature: New church for newly formed ecclesiastical district 'built to William Farrell's most ubiquitous chapel of ease design' (Mulligan). 3-bay hall short chancel, pinnacled bellcote and corner buttresses, battlemented porch.
Refs: Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 211; exterior illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 246.
Nature: New chapel of ease in Drumgoon parish.'Built...to William Farrell's standard single-cell design' (Mulligan). 3-bay with bellcote at W end and shallow chancel.
Refs: Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 293; exterior illus in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 241.
Nature: New church 'built in 1834 to a design by William Farrell' (Mulligan). 3-bay hall and tower type.
Refs: Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 559; exterior illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 241(illus.).
Refs: Fred Rankin, ed., Clergy of Down and Dromore (Ulster Historical Foundation, 1996 , 232(illus.); exterior also illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 201.
Nature: 'solid stone house...with the recessed panel decoration and cubic massing characteristic of William Farrell, who may well have been the architect'.
Nature: 'The Bishop [George de la Poer Beresford] has lately erected a palace in lieu of the old one…The new palace…is built in the Grecian Doric style and covered with Roman cement. It appears too lofty, and in other repects is not well proportioned. The drive from the public road…is badLy managed, being tortured into short curves, for which the character of the ground is not fitted.' (Binns) Given to William Farrell by Mulligan.
Refs: Jonathan Binns, The Miseries and Beauties of Ireland (1837), I, 306; Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), Pl.54. 396.
Nature: New church, replacing one of 1688. Gothic, with 5-bay nave, 2-storey pinnacled porch, pinnacled belfry and short chancel.. By W. Farrell & Son.
Refs: Signed and dated drawings in RCB Library, portfolio 20; Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 375; Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013),243(illus.).
Refs: Drawings in RCB Library,signed, and approved in 1838 (IAA, Edward McParland files, Acc.2008/44); Alistair Rowan, The Buildings of Ireland: North West Ulster (1979), 453; illus. in Clergy of Clogher (Ulster Historical Foundation, 2006), 89.
Nature: Primitive neo-Norman five-bay hall with bellcote and three porches. By William Farrell & Son. Consecrated 2 Aug 1840.
Refs: Drawings, s. & d. William Farrell & Son, 1838, in RCB Library, portfolio 3A; J.B. Leslie, Clogher Clergy and Parishes (1929), 169; Alistair Rowan, The Buildings of Ireland: North West Ulster (1979), 295; illus. in Clergy of Clogher (Ulster Historical Foundation, 2006), Pt. 1, 40.
Refs: Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 443; illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 128.
Nature: WF responsible for nave only, built at sole expense of Lord John George Beresford. Completed Aug 1842. Consecrated 7 Aug 1843.
Nature: New church 'in the Saxon style of architecture' (replacing one of 1795)with 5-bay nave, short chancel and tower at W. end. Designed by WF for Rev. G.N.Tredennick. Completed 1842. Cost: £3,405,11s.8d.
Refs: B.H. Blacker, Sketches of Irish Churches, ? ? (B of I); Rev. F.E. Bland, Stoiry of Crinken 1840-1940, 7; exterior illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 289.
Nature: New church by William Farrell & Son. 3-bay hall with bellcote. Also lodges?
Refs: Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 265; illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 128.
Refs: Plans & elevations, signed William Farrell & Son and dated 25 May 1840, in RCB Library, portfolio 6 (illus. in on-line catalogue www.archdrawing.ireland.anglican.org); Christian Examiner, 1, no. 8, 1 Aug 1840, 255; Fourth and final report of the Down & Connor Church Accommodation Society (1843), 7; Brett, 27; Paul Larmour, The Architectural Heritage of Malone & Stranmillis (UAHS, 1991), 109.
Refs: J.B. Leslie, Clogher Clergy and Parishes (1929), 150; illus. in Clergy of Clogher (Ulster Historical Foundation, 2006), Part 1, 32; Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 281.
Nature: Single cell 3-bay church.
Refs: Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 351; illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 127.
Nature: Design either by Thomas Elliott or WF with Elliott as contractor. Church consecrated 7 Jun 1842..
Refs: Alistair Rowan, The Buildings of Ireland: North West Ulster (1979), 277; exterior illus. in Clergy of Clogher (Ulster Historical Foundation, 2006), 50; Duncan Scarlett, Dedicated to St Anne (2007), 43; interior illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 149.
Nature: Designs for new chancel and buttress piers.
Nature: Restoration of interior of church built 1786 and addition of tower, spire and chancel (Leslie, but cf. Rowan). Builder: William Scott.
Refs: J.B. Leslie, Armagh Clergy & Parishes (1911), 427-8; M. Scott, The Scotts of Lisanelly and Lisnamallard (Glasgow, 1924), I, 42-3; Alistair Rowan, The Buildings of Ireland: North West Ulster (1979), 167; illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 130.
Nature: New church, probably designed by WF or Joseph Welland. Cruciform with W tower (not executed), N & S porches off transepts. Battlemented with decorated bellcote on W gable. Design approved 1841. Dedicated 1843. Opened Oct 1844. Consecrated 3 May 1845.
Refs: Unsigned drawing, inscr. 'Approved 1841' and 'Dedicated 1843', in RCB Library, portfolio 12; Fred Rankin, ed., Clergy of Down and Dromore (Ulster Historical Foundation, 1996), 215-6(illus.).
Nature: Additions including 13-bay, 3-storey range of cells.
Refs: Contract drawings, letters &c.,1841-2 in PRONI D/571/129-179, and accounts for advertisements placed in newspapers in respect of gaol, memorials and letters from WF to Commissioners for enlarging same, 1843-44, FER/4/6/8-20.
Nature: New chapel of ease in parish of Aghabog. Cruciform with 3-stage pinnacled tower'intended as an eye-catcher for vistas from Newbliss House' (Mulligan). Consecrated by Bishop of Clogher, 1 Jul 1841. Built and endowed by Andrew Ker, Esq..
Refs: Christian Examiner 2, no. 8, 1 Aug 1841, 255Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 494-5.
Nature: New church, consecrated 21 Nov 1843; 'low rubble-built cruciform church in the Tudoresque idiom of William Farrell' (Rowan).
Refs: J.B. Leslie, Armagh Clergy & Parishes (1911), 272; Alistair Rowan, The Buildings of Ireland: North West Ulster (1979), 428; illus. in Claude Costegalde & Brian Walker, The Church of Ireland: an illustrated history (2013), 122.
Nature: WF & Son make plan for same.
Nature: New. 62-bay, 3-storey range in institutional Elizabethan style. (Quantities taken by Thomas Turner and Patrick Kerr.) Opened 1853. Contractor: William Hague, Cavan.
Refs: Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 245.
Nature: Attr. to WF suggested by Casey & Rowan.
Nature: Attr. to William Farrell by Rowan. For - Maxwell?.
Nature: By William Farrell for Rev. Francis Gervais. Now gone.
Nature: Lodge identical to WF's gate lodge at Ely Lodge.
Nature: Designs for plain 3-bay house with simple portico for John George. Mulligan points out that design as executed looks more like a Richard Morrison villa, and Dermot Brennan of David Slattery Conservation Architects, says (Oct, 2018) that design strongly resembles that of Thornhill, Cherrygarth Road, Mount Merrion, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, on which David Slattery Conservation Architects did a report. John George could be the Dublin barrister of the same name who was also an MP for Co. Wexford.
Refs: Plans and elevations in William Farrell album, Houghton Library, Harvard University (ref: RAN 1/N/4) nos. 53-55; see John Harris, A Catalogue of British Drawings for Architecture, Decoration, Sculpture and Landscape Gardening 1550-1900 in American Collections (1971), 97; Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 534.
Nature: Proposal for 'house for Hon. George Knox' (?Prehen). 3-bay, 2-storey, Gothic, with label mouldings and ornate string course.
Refs: Plans and elevations in William Farrell album, Houghton Library, Harvard University (ref: RAN 1/N/4) nos. 49-52; see John Harris, A Catalogue of British Drawings for Architecture, Decoration, Sculpture and Landscape Gardening 1550-1900 in American Collections (1971), 97.
Nature: Designs by WF for 'House for Ralph Dopping'(?Ernehead). Long, regular, battlemented Gothic house, forming with its outbuildings the best part of an irregular polygon.
Refs: Plan and elevation in William Farrell album, Houghton Library, Harvard University (ref: RAN 1/N/4) nos. 47,48; see John Harris, A Catalogue of British Drawings for Architecture, Decoration, Sculpture and Landscape Gardening 1550-1900 in American Collections (1971), 96.
Nature: Designs by WF for Roger Hall.
Refs: Plans and elevations in William Farrell album, Houghton Library, Harvard University (ref: RAN 1/N/4) nos. 43-46; see John Harris, A Catalogue of British Drawings for Architecture, Decoration, Sculpture and Landscape Gardening 1550-1900 in American Collections (1971), 96.
Refs: Plans and elevations in William Farrell album, Houghton Library, Harvard University (ref: RAN 1/N/4) nos. 38-42; see John Harris, A Catalogue of British Drawings for Architecture, Decoration, Sculpture and Landscape Gardening 1550-1900 in American Collections (1971), 96.
Nature: WF designs 5-bay house with 3-bay prjecting central porch. For William Henry Magan.
Refs: Plans and elevations in William Farrell album, Houghton Library, Harvard University (ref: RAN 1/N/4) nos. 30-37; see John Harris, A Catalogue of British Drawings for Architecture, Decoration, Sculpture and Landscape Gardening 1550-1900 in American Collections (1971), 96.
Nature: WF designs 3-storey, 5-bay house with projecting pedimented central bay. For John Staunton Rochfort.
Refs: Plans and elevations in William Farrell album, Houghton Library, Harvard University (ref: RAN 1/N/4) nos. 23-27; see John Harris, A Catalogue of British Drawings for Architecture, Decoration, Sculpture and Landscape Gardening 1550-1900 in American Collections (1971), 96.
Nature: Designs for 2-storey, 5-bay building, the 3 central bays projecting and topped by balustrade.
Refs: Plans and elevations in William Farrell album, Houghton Library, Harvard University (ref: RAN 1/N/4) nos. 15-18; see John Harris, A Catalogue of British Drawings for Architecture, Decoration, Sculpture and Landscape Gardening 1550-1900 in American Collections (1971), 96.
Nature: Designs for classical building with projecting pedimented central bay containing kitchen, with hall above it and 2-storey operating theatre above hall.
Refs: Plans and entrance front elevation in William Farrell album, Houghton Library, Harvard University (ref: RAN 1/N/4) nos. 6-10; see John Harris, A Catalogue of British Drawings for Architecture, Decoration, Sculpture and Landscape Gardening 1550-1900 in American Collections (1971), 96.
Nature: WF designs additions with very extensive offices, outbuildings, farm buildings and conservatory. For Sir Samuel Hutchinson, Bt.
Refs: Plan and elevation in William Farrell album, Houghton Library, Harvard University (ref: RAN 1/N/4) nos. 28,29; see John Harris, A Catalogue of British Drawings for Architecture, Decoration, Sculpture and Landscape Gardening 1550-1900 in American Collections (1971), 96.
Refs: Undated plan and elevations of neo-Norman cathedral, signed William Farrell, Architect, and unsigned, undated plan and elevations (in same hand) of Gothic cathedral in collection of William Harvey (a descendant of Farrell's pupil Sandham Symes), 86 Beechwood Drive, Broomhill, Glasgow; Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 98.
Nature: Enlargement of house subject of dispute between Archdeacon and WF (as architect to Board of First Fruits) Does this mean that WF was the architect for the enlargements?
Refs: PRONI, Letters from Richard Mant to Lord Downshire and Thomas Parry., 1824-1843, D671/C/188.
Nature: New glebe house 'easily attributable to william Farrell' (Mulligan).
Refs: Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (2013), 376.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


text:
Although Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald had participated in shows with the Group of Seven for two years prior to joining them in 1932, he exhibited officially with the group only once before they disbanded in 1933. A Memorial Exhibition organized by the National Gallery of Canada and the Winnipeg Art Gallery travelled across Canada in 1958. The first in-depth scholarly analysis of his work occurred with the exhibition Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald, 1890–1956: The Development of an Artist, curated by Patricia E. Bovey and Ann Davis with Cathy Stewart for the Winnipeg Art Gallery in 1978.
FitzGerald and Vally in their dining room with friends, c. 1940. Pritchard’s Fence, c. 1938, hangs on the wall in the background.
Installation view of FitzGerald's A Memorial Exhibition at the Winnipeg Art Gallery, February 23 to March 23, 1958.
September 10–27, 1921, Catalogue of Paintings by L.L. FitzGerald, Winnipeg Art Gallery, Board of Trade Building. First solo exhibition (forty-one works).
May 9–October 1925, British Empire Exhibition Canadian Section of Fine Arts, British Empire, Fine Arts Galleries, Wembley Park, London, United Kingdom.
April 10–May 10, 1927, Exposition d’art Canadien, Musée du Jeu de Paume, Paris.
January 1928, Arts and Letters Club of Toronto. FitzGerald’s first solo exhibition in Eastern Canada.
Late December 1929–February 1930, J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., Aldine House, 224 Bloor St. W., Toronto.
May 18–June 1, 1935, Exhibition of Drawings by Kathleen Munn, LeMoine FitzGerald, Bertram Brooker, Malloney Galleries, Toronto.
February 12–25, 1943, FitzGerald Drawings, Vancouver Art Gallery.
September 13–October 2, 1949, FitzGerald Watercolours and Drawings, Vancouver Art Gallery.
February 17, 1951, L.L. FitzGerald Paintings and Drawings, Winnipeg Art Gallery.
October 20–December, 1951, I Bienal do Museu de Arte Moderna de São Paulo, Museu de Arte Moderna, São Paulo, Brazil.
March 30, 1957, Memorial Room for LeMoine FitzGerald 1890–1956, Winnipeg Art Gallery.
February 23–March 23, 1958, Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald, 1890–1956: A Memorial Exhibition, Winnipeg Art Gallery. Catalogue texts by Ferdinand Eckhardt, Lawren Harris, and LeMoine FitzGerald. Travelled to Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, Windsor Art Association, London Public Library, Art Gallery of Toronto, Regina College, and Vancouver Art Gallery.
April–May 1963, A New FitzGerald, Winnipeg Art Gallery, Civic Auditorium. Catalogue introduction by Ferdinand Eckhardt. This exhibition displayed all the known self-portraits for the first time.
January 31–April 13, 1975, L.L. FitzGerald and Bertram Brooker: Their Drawings, Winnipeg Art Gallery. Catalogue by Patricia E. Bovey.
March 7–29, 1977, L. LeMoine FitzGerald Exhibition, Gallery One One One, University of Manitoba School of Art, Winnipeg. Catalogue by Helen Coy.
March 24–May 28, 1978, Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald, 1890–1956: The Development of an Artist, Winnipeg Art Gallery. Curated by Patricia E. Bovey and Ann Davis with Cathy Stewart. Travelled to National Gallery of Canada, July 28–September 10, 1978; Norman MacKenzie Art Gallery, Regina, December 14, 1978–January 28, 1979; Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal, March 8–April 22, 1979; Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto, June 30–August 26, 1979; Glenbow-Alberta Institute, Calgary, October 5–December 1, 1979. Catalogue. This was the first large scholarly exhibition and catalogue to assess FitzGerald’s entire career.
March 17–April 15, 1982, FitzGerald as Printmaker: A Catalogue Raisonné of the First Complete Exhibition of the Printed Works, Gallery One One One, University of Manitoba School of Art, Winnipeg. Catalogue by Helen Coy.
September 10–October 31, 1982, Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald: His Drawings and Watercolours, Edmonton Art Gallery. Catalogue by Maggie Callahan.
October 2, 1988–January 2, 1989, In Seclusion with Nature: The Later Work of L. LeMoine FitzGerald 1942 to 1956, Winnipeg Art Gallery. Curated by Michael Parke-Taylor. Travelled to London Regional Art Gallery, March 17–April 30, 1989; Dalhousie Art Gallery, Halifax, May 25–July 9, 1989; McMichael Canadian Art Collection, Kleinburg, Ontario, July 30–October 1, 1989; Musée du Québec, December 6, 1989–January 28, 1990. Catalogue.
April 16–May 31, 1994, Living Harmony: FitzGerald’s British Columbia Landscapes, Vancouver Art Gallery. Catalogue by Ian M. Thom.
Beauty in a Common Thing: Drawings and Prints by L.L. FitzGerald, organized and circulated by the National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa. Curated by Christine Lalonde. Travelled to Owens Art Gallery, Sackville, New Brunswick, September 10–November 7, 2004; Winnipeg Art Gallery, December 18, 2004–March 13, 2005; Thunder Bay Art Gallery, Ontario, April 5–May 22, 2005. Catalogue.
March 7–May 17, 2009, FitzGerald in Context, Winnipeg Art Gallery. Catalogue by Marilyn Baker.
Cover of Catalogue of Paintings by L.L. FitzGerald, University of Manitoba Archives & Special Collections, Winnipeg. FitzGerald designed this cover for the catalogue of his first solo exhibition, which was held at the Winnipeg Art Gallery, Board of Trade Building, September 10–27, 1921.
FitzGerald, L.L. “Plans for Work.” In Supplementary Statement, John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, New York. Published in FitzGerald as Printmaker, A Catalogue Raisonné of the First Complete Exhibition of the Printed Works, by Helen Coy, 3–4. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1982.
———. “REPORT on a little journey around the art world of Vancouver in September nineteen forty-four.” October 31, 1944 (typescript copy in Winnipeg Art Gallery files).
———. “The Art Forum.” Canadian Art 11, no. 1 (August 1953): 39.
———. Bertram Brooker O.S.A. (1855 [sic]—1955). 84th Annual Exhibition of the Ontario Society of Artists. Exhibition catalogue. Toronto: Art Gallery of Toronto, 1956.
———. “FitzGerald on Art.” Canadian Art 15, no. 2 (April 1958): 118–19.
———. “FitzGerald on Art.” Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald, 1890–1956: A Memorial Exhibition. Exhibition catalogue. Winnipeg Art Gallery, 1958.
Ayre, Robert [under the pseudonym de “The Wanderer”]. “I First Saw.” Winnipeg Tribune, December 21, 1923.
———. “LeMoine FitzGerald's Drawings Delicate Sensitive and Admirable.” Montreal Standard, December 31, 1938.
Cover of Canadian Art 7, no. 4 (Summer 1950), featuring Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald, Tree Study I, 1949, oil on canvas, 35.8 x 21.9 cm, Winnipeg Art Gallery.
Robert Ayre Fonds. Queen’s University Archives. Kingston, Ontario. Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald, unpublished typescript.
Brooker, Bertram. “The Seven Arts.” Ottawa Citizen, September 7, 1929.
Harris, Lawren. “The Recent Work of Lemoine [sic] Fitzgerald [sic].” Holograph manuscript. Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada Archives. 7.1-F. Reprinted in Michael Parke-Taylor: In Seclusion with Nature: The Later Work of L. LeMoine FitzGerald, 1942 to 1956, Appendix A, 47–48. Winnipeg: Winnipeg Art Gallery, 1988.
———. “LeMoine FitzGerald, Western Artist: FitzGerald’s Recent Work.” Canadian Art 3 no. 1 (October–November 1945): 10–13.
McCarthy, Pearl. “Mr. FitzGerald: Rare Visitor But His Horizon Is National.” Globe and Mail, August 8, 1953.
Ayre, Robert. “FitzGerald the Least Known of Our Major Painters.” Montreal Star, August 18, 1956.
———. “More Recollections of LeMoine FitzGerald.” Montreal Star, August 25, 1956.
———. “Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald 1890-1956.” Canadian Art 14, no. 1 (Autumn 1956): 14–16.
———. “Don’t Approach LeMoine FitzGerald on Your Knees.” Montreal Star, May 3, 1958.
———. “Painter of the Prairies.” Weekend Magazine 8, no. 12 (1958): 26–29.
Baker, Marilyn. FitzGerald in Context. Winnipeg: Winnipeg Art Gallery, 2009. Exhibition catalogue.
Berry, Virginia. “30 Deer Lodge Place” [160 Lyle St.], c. 1962. Photocopy of holograph manuscript. Winnipeg Art Gallery Library.
Bovey, Patricia E., and Ann Davis. Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald (1890–1956): The Development of an Artist. Winnipeg: Winnipeg Art Gallery, 1978. Exhibition catalogue.
Bovey, Patricia E. L.L. FitzGerald and Bertram Brooker: Their Drawings. Winnipeg: Winnipeg Art Gallery, 1975. Exhibition catalogue.
Brooke, Janet M. “Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald.” In The Art of Connoisseurship. Montreal: Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, 1979. Exhibition catalogue.
Callahan, Maggie. Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald: His Drawings and Watercolours. Edmonton: Edmonton Art Gallery, 1982. Exhibition catalogue.
Coy, Helen. L. LeMoine FitzGerald Exhibition. Winnipeg: Gallery One One One, University of Manitoba, 1977. Exhibition catalogue.
Cover of exhibition catalogue Beauty in a Common Thing: Drawings and Prints by L.L. FitzGerald, National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa (2004), featuring a detail of Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald, View from Window with Potted Plant, c. 1939, linocut on buff wove paper, 16.8 x 8.9 cm, National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa.
———. FitzGerald as Printmaker, A Catalogue Raisonné of the First Complete Exhibition of the Printed Works. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1982. Exhibition catalogue.
Eckhardt, Ferdinand. “The Technique of L.L. FitzGerald.” Canadian Art 15, no. 2 (April 1958): 114–18, 149.
———. A New FitzGerald. Winnipeg: Winnipeg Art Gallery, 1963. Exhibition catalogue.
Forrest, Kevin. “The Prints of L.L. FitzGerald.” MA thesis. Ottawa: Carleton University, 1979.
Foss, Brian. “Review: In Seclusion with Nature: The Later Work of L. LeMoine FitzGerald, 1942 to 1956, by Michael Parke-Taylor.” Journal of Canadian Art History 12, no. 2 (1989): 203–07.
George, Nellie H. “L.M. [sic] FitzgGerald [sic], The Prairie Artist.” The Manitoba Teacher (March/April, 1958): 12–13.
Harris, Lawren. “Lemoine Fitzgerald [sic].” In Canadian Group of Painters 56/57, no pagination. Toronto: Canadian Group of Painters, 1956. Catalogue for an exhibition held at the Art Gallery of Toronto and the Vancouver Art Gallery.
Hill, Charles. Canadian Painting in the Thirties. Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada, 1975. Exhibition catalogue.
Lalonde, Christine. Beauty in a Common Thing: Drawings and Prints by L.L. FitzGerald. Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada, 2004. Exhibition catalogue.
Cover of exhibition catalogue In Seclusion with Nature: The Later Work of L. LeMoine FitzGerald, 1942 to 1956, Winnipeg Art Gallery (1988), featuring Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald, Composition (Untitled Abstract), c. 1952, oil on canvas, 66.1 x 55.9 cm, Montreal Museum of Fine Arts.
Luff, Carole Frances. “Progress Passing through the Spirit: The Modernist Vision of Bertram Brooker and Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald as Redemptive Art.” MA thesis. Ottawa: Carleton University, 1991.
Parke-Taylor, Michael. In Seclusion with Nature: The Later Work of L. LeMoine FitzGerald, 1942 to 1956. Winnipeg: Winnipeg Art Gallery, 1988. Exhibition catalogue.
Sens, Karen Linda. “A Discussion of the Stylistic Development in the Dated Oil Paintings of Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald (1890–1956).” MA thesis. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1970.
Shaul, Sandra. “Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald: The Search for Structural Unity in Abstract Art.” In The Modern Image: Cubism and the Realist Tradition. Edmonton: Edmonton Art Gallery, 1981. Exhibition catalogue.
Thom, Ian. Living Harmony: FitzGerald’s British Columbia Landscapes. Vancouver: Vancouver Art Gallery, 1994. Exhibition catalogue.
Wylie, Elizabeth. “The Development of Spirituality in the Work of Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald 1890–1956.” MA thesis. Montreal: Concordia University, 1981.
———. “The Prairie Art of L.L. FitzGerald.” In The Group of Seven in Western Canada, edited by Catharine M. Mastin, 135–55. Toronto/Calgary: Key Porter Books/Glenbow Museum, 2002. Exhibition catalogue.
———. “A Picture as a Living Thing: Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald and Landscape.” In Embracing Canada: Landscapes from Krieghoff to the Group of Seven, edited by Ian Thom, 188–91. Vancouver: Vancouver Art Gallery, 2016. Exhibition catalogue.
Varley, Christopher. “Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald: Modernist in Isolation.” In OKanada, edited by Robert Stacey, 76–80. Ottawa: The Canada Council for the Arts, 1982. Exhibition catalogue.
While FitzGerald was quoted from time to time in newspaper articles, this is the only in-depth interview recorded: L.L. FitzGerald. “Painters of the Prairies.” Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Midwest Network. Radio interview. December 1, 1954 (transcript in University of Manitoba Archives & Special Collections—L.L. FitzGerald—Helen Coy Research Material—Notes/Correspondence 1938–89, Box 24, Folder 22). Reprinted in In Seclusion with Nature: The Later Work of L. LeMoine FitzGerald, 1942 to 1956, by Michael Parke-Taylor, Appendix B, 49–51. Winnipeg: Winnipeg Art Gallery, 1988.
FitzGerald in his office c. 1939 with a book open to a reproduction of Paul Cézanne’s Portrait of Victor Chocquet, 1877.
Lionel LeMoine Fitzgerald’s Fonds. Includes digital collections and FitzGerald Family Fonds (University of Manitoba Archives & Special Collections); and digital collections and Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald Fonds (Winnipeg Art Gallery Archives): http://umanitoba.ca/libraries/units/archives/digital/prairie_prestige/fitzgerald.html.
Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald Fonds: Inventory of Papers, University of Manitoba Archives & Special Collections, Winnipeg: http://www.umanitoba.ca/libraries/units/archives/collections/complete_holdings/ead/html/fitzgerald.shtml.
National Gallery of Canada. Cybermuse digital collection FitzGerald NGC holdings: http://cybermuse.gallery.ca/cybermuse/enthusiast/thirties/gallery_of_e.jsp?iartistid=1784.
Winnipeg Art Gallery Collection. Website digital collection, FitzGerald: http://wag.ca/art/art-search/type:and/artist:FitzGerald.
Cover of the Winnipeg Actimist (February 1945), featuring Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald.
Lionel LeMoine FitzGerald was an avid reader on a wide range of subjects, encompassing artists, art history, the art world in general, and topics beyond. He shared a passion for books with his artist friend Bertram Brooker (1888–1955), who recommended literature they might discuss together.
Blake, William. Songs of Innocence and Experience. A gift from Brooker, 1945.
Brooker, Bertram (ed.). Yearbook of the Arts in Canada, 1928–1929. Toronto: Macmillan Co. of Canada Ltd.,1929.
Carey, Joyce, The Horse’s Mouth. London: Michael Joseph, 1944.
Fairless, Michael [Margaret Barber]. The Roadmender. London: Duckworth & Co., 1906.
Frantz, Henri. “The Art of Richard Parkes Bonington.” The Studio 33 (November 1904): 98–111.
Hunt, Holman. Pre-Raphaelitism and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. 2 vols. London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd., 1905.
Ruskin, John. The Elements of Drawing. London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1907.
Thomas, Dylan. “Vision and Prayer.” Horizon (January 1945): 8–13.

matches:
Art 11
Art 15
Art 7
Art 3
Art 14
Art 15


Those in the furniture industry who invest in new designs are in a constant fight to protect those designs from others who would rather spend money on designs after they have proven popular. Historically, design patents have been one tool used by companies trying to protect their new designs. The expense is relatively minor for obtaining design patents, and the value can be extremely important in, at a minimum, deterring companies from the potential exposure of infringement.
This article is designed just to introduce you to the requirements for obtaining a design patent.
The Patent Laws. When most people discuss “patents,” they are typically referring to “utility patents.” A utility patent covers a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof….” 35 U.S.C. § 101. A utility patent is considered as protection for the “function” of an item; it is valid for up to twenty (20) years from the date of application subject to certain conditions.
A design patent can be issued for “any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture….” 35 U.S.C. § 171(a). A design patent, therefore, protects the way an item “looks.” A design patent is valid for up to fourteen (14) years from the date of the patent grant.
“The language ‘new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture’ set forth in 35 U.S.C. 171 has been interpreted by the case law to include at least three kinds of designs: (A) a design for an ornament, impression, print, or picture applied to or embodied in an article of manufacture (surface indicia); (B) a design for the shape or configuration of an article of manufacture; and (C) a combination of the first two categories. Best Lock Corp. v. Ilco Unican Corp., 94 F.3d 1563, 40 USPQ2d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Newman, dissenting); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1504.01 (8th ed. 2001 rev. Oct. 2005).
To qualify for patent protection, a design must be inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone merely as a scheme of surface ornamentation. It must be a definite, preconceived thing, capable of reproduction and not merely the chance result of a method. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure§ 1502 (8th ed. 2001 rev. Oct. 2005).
A broad definition has been given to the phrase “article of manufacture” to include a “sarcophagus monument” (Crier v. Innes, 170 F.324 (2d Cir. 1909)), a “grandstand” (In re Hadden, 20 F.2d at 276 (D.C.Ct. Appeals ), but not a water fountain which was believed to be merely “a fleeting product of nozzle arrangements” (In re Hruby, 373 F.2d 997 (CCPA 1967).
Requirements for a Design Patent. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure establishes that “ornamentality, novelty, nonobviousness, enablement, and definiteness” are prerequisites to the grant of a design patent. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (8th ed. 2001 rev. Oct. 2005) §1504.
To be ornamental, a design must present a pleasing aesthetic appearance and must not be dictated solely by functional considerations. See, e.g., In re Stimpson, 24 F.2d 1012, 1012, 58 App. D.C. 86 (D.C. Cir. 1928) (design of rivet-setting machine not patentable; “There is nothing about the assembled mechanical device which serves to beautify, embellish, or adorn it. …The design in issue may be new and original as to form, but it is not ornamental, inasmuch as it does not please the senses or excite the emotions by its color effects, or by its proportion of form. It is not necessary that the design … should be a work of the fine arts, but it is necessary that the design should be … either embellished or adorned, or distinguished by its grace of symmetry of form.”).
The requirement of “novelty” or “nonobviousness” is determined by a review of the ornamental shape or configuration of the article in which the design is embodied or the surface ornamentation which is applied to or embodied in the design.  Id.  In other words, the Patent Office will search other designs, catalogs, and trade journals to determine whether the applied-for design is “new” and not obvious in light of previous designs.  The claim must be nonobvious when compared with prior art using two tests:  (A) if an ordinary observer purchases an article supposing it to be the other; it is obvious; and (B) if the design appropriates the point of novelty that distinguishes the patented design from other prior art, it is obvious.  Bernhardt, L.L.C. v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc., 386 F.3d 1371, 1373, 72 U.S.P.Q.2d 1901 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Design Must be Nonfunctional A design that is dictated by considerations of function is not a proper subject for a design patent. Further, if the sole points of novelty over prior designs are dictated by functional improvement or alteration, a design is not patentable.
Parts of Articles can be Protected Section 171 also authorizes a patent claiming the design for a part of an article. In In re Zahn, the court determined that a design need only be embodied in some article, but did not need to be a design for a complete article. In Zahn, the design patent was embodied in the shank portion of a drill. As seen in the figure, below, design patents are available on just the “table leg” which would protect the use of the table leg with any type of table top.
Conclusion. If you invest in new designs for furniture, and you are tired of having your new designs copied and sold at lower cost, protecting your new designs with a design patent can prove beneficial. A later article will address the question of infringement of such patents, but most decisions would prevent an exact knock-off of your design. A design patent can significantly help in your pursuit of such knock-offs, provide enhanced damages for such infringement, and thereby protect your investment..
If you would like to discuss the availability for design patent protection or a dispute arising from the alleged infringement of a design patent, please contact Bert Andia at (336) 273-1600 or bandia@greensborolaw.com.
The North Carolina Business Court continues to be a battleground for disputes involving alleged misappropriations of trade secrets. These lawsuits typically target disloyal former employees, but in a recent opinion, the Business Court allowed claims against non-employee defendants to move forward.
The plaintiff in Koch Measurement Devices, Inc. v. Armke, 2013 NCBC 48 (Oct. 14, 2013), is a wholesaler of high-end “beer growlers”—collectible glass jugs typically used to transport draft beer out of craft breweries. Koch sued its former web designer and web host, Michael Walsak, and Tote Glass, Inc., a company in which Walsak held an interest, alleging that Walsak and Tote had conspired with Koch’s former (and now-deceased) President to divert Koch’s assets, business opportunities, and trade secrets to Tote. In particular, Koch’s complaint alleged that Walsak and Tote misappropriated confidential information including Koch’s customer lists, the ordering habits and history of Koch’s customers, and Koch’s pricing and inventory management strategies; diverted Koch’s inventory to Tote; imported growlers from Koch’s German supplier; used Koch’s glass decorator; used the same pricing schedule as Koch; stole Koch’s largest client; and removed Koch’s website from the web.
If you would like to discuss a trade-secret misappropriation issue contact John Bloss at (336) 273-1600 or jbloss@greensborolaw.com.
But I Wanted that Domain Name!!
enterprise, and you should endeavor to pick a domain that cannot be disputed. This article uses the case of Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. McSherry, 2003 NAFDD LEXIS 11339 (June 17, 2003) to illustrate the domain dispute process.
and, probably, at Disney’s theme park. She began renting her own home, as well as the homes of others. Eventually, she was renting 55 homes in the Orlando, Florida area and started a business named Florida Vacation Homes, Inc. She registered the domain name www.disneyvacationvillas.com thinking that travelers looking for a single family house in close proximity to Disney® might be attracted to her website.
Janice operated her business for three (3) years – and then she got a certified letter from Disney Enterprises, Inc. claiming that she was improperly using the Disney trademark, and demanding that she transfer ownership of her domain name to Disney.
Janice quickly found out about an administrative procedure specifically set up for disputes over domain names. Since it was launched in December 1999, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is the mandatory global procedure for resolving disputes over all top-level domains and some country code top-level domains. The UDRP was established in response to individuals registering domain names using well known trademarks (also known as “cybersquatters”), without the trademark owner’s permission, hoping to sell the domain name at an inflated price. Currently, the UDRP procedure is provided by The Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC), the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Czech Arbitration Court, and the Arbitration Center for Internet Disputes.
Identical or Confusingly Similar. Disney provided evidence of its registration of the mark DISNEY®. The one-arbitrator panel determined that Janice’s domain name was confusingly similar to the DISNEY® mark. The inclusion of generic words, or ordinary descriptive words (like “vacation” and “villas”) was found to be insufficient to detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name. Note that common law or unregistered trademark rights are sufficient to show rights in a mark for the purposes of the UDRP.
Rights or Legitimate Interests. Under UDRP policy, if the Complainant can prove that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests for Respondent’s use of the mark, the burden of proof on this element shifts to Respondent to prove rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. The UDRP provides examples of how Respondent might prove a legitimate interest in the domain name: (1) by proving that, before receiving any notice of the Complainant’s rights, Respondent used the domain name in a legitimate manner; (2) by proving that the domain name corresponds with a name by which Respondent is commonly known; or (3) by proving that Respondent is making a fair non-commercial use of the domain name.
Janice introduced evidence that, for a number of years prior to receiving notice from Disney, her company was known as Disney Vacation Villas. However, the panel found that Janice did not, and could not, demonstrate that she was known as Disney Vacation Villas prior to registration of the domain name.
Janice also introduced evidence that she was making a bona fide offering of service on her website. However, since Janice admittedly used the word “Disney” in her domain name to attract Internet users to her site and since Janice was in competition with Disney for vacation rentals, Janice’s use of the domain name was found to be in violation of UDRP policy (use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a bona fide offering of services).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith. UDRP policy provides four non-exclusive examples of bad faith use and registration: (1) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or transferring the domain name to the Complainant or a competitor of Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documents costs directly related to the domain name; (2) Respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark owner from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct, (3) Respondent registered the domain name primarily to disrupt the business of a competitor; or (4) Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website.
Disney set to prove “bad faith” under the fourth example, i.e. that Janice was intentionally using the domain name to attract Internet users to her website by creating a likelihood of confusion. Janice countered that argument by establishing that her website was designed to avoid any confusion with a Disney-sponsored website, including the use of a disclaimer. Janice provided information from consumers that they were not mislead or confused when viewing her website.
The panel, however, decided that Janice admittedly chose to include “Disney” in her domain name in order to attract Internet users looking for rental properties close to Disney’s theme park. Janice also admitted that Disney® provided rental lodging within the theme park and, therefore, she was in competition with Disney®. Therefore, the panel concluded that Janice’s use met the standard for “bad faith”.
The panel ordered that the domain name be transferred from Janice to Disney.
For more information on disputing a domain name or registering the correct domain name please contact Bert Andia at Higgins Benjamin PLLC. bandia@greensborolaw.com (336) 273-1600.


March 1 is tomorrow, which means that income tax returns for farmers who do not pay estimated taxes are due. It also means that a new crop year begins in Iowa. Farm landlords have 20 days to file a UCC-1 to perfect their landlord's lien on the tenant's crops. For more information, please see page seven of our publication, Iowa Farm Leases: A Legal Review.
On February 12, 2018, the Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will shape Iowa nuisance law, as it applies to animal feeding operations.The Court will again analyze Iowa Code § 657.11, which was enacted in 1995 to protect agricultural producers “who manage their operations according to state and federal requirements from the costs of defending nuisance suits.” This will be the third time Iowa’s highest court has assessed the constitutionality of a statute protecting agricultural producers from nuisance lawsuits.
On February 23, 2018, the Iowa Supreme Court vacated a court of appeals decision from last September and ruled that a postmortem family settlement agreement could not allow a taxpayer to avoid state inheritance tax. The ruling upheld the Iowa Department of Revenue's denial of a taxpayer's claim for a refund. The Court declined to craft a test for determining when a settlement agreement can contol inheritance tax consequences. Instead, the Court stated, "Estate planning should precede the testator's death." Justice Mansfield dissented. The case is Nance v. Iowa Dept of Revenue, No. 16-1974 (Iowa February 23, 2018).
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has significantly changed the tax landscape for agricultural producers. We’ve detailed a number of the changes, many of them positive, in prior articles. In light of the federal changes, Iowa must now decide how to respond. As Iowa lawmakers turn their attention to tax reform, we review several key IRC § 179 issues with great impact to Iowa agriculture and suggest they warrant attention, especially a glitch in the law that can deny owners of certain entities cost recovery altogether.
Section 179 has long been an important tool for farmers. It helps them with ever-difficult cash flow struggles, lowers their marginal effective tax rate, and eliminates burdensome recordkeeping requirements associated with depreciation. Between 2012 and 2016, farmers claimed 53% to 73% of the IRC § 179 claimed by Iowa taxpayers. Nearly half of the farmers who claimed IRC § 179 had less than $350,000 in gross cash farm income. They were the principal operators of their farms.
Historically, Iowa has not coupled with federal bonus depreciation provisions, but has conformed to federal IRC § 179 provisions. Last year, in light of serious budget concerns, the Iowa Legislature decided not to couple with many federal tax extender provisions, including the increased IRC § 179 made permanent by the 2015 PATH Act. Consequently, during the 2017 filing season (2016 tax year), taxpayers and their preparers for the first time battled with a $500,000 federal IRC § 179 deduction and a corresponding $25,000 Iowa § 179 deduction. And, the federal threshold (or level at which the expense deduction begins to phase out), was $2,010,000, while the Iowa threshold remained at $200,000. This led some Iowa farmers to face significantly higher Iowa tax liability than federal tax liability.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) made significant changes impacting the depreciation and expensing of vehicles used in a trade or business. In this post, we review the current law.
2017 Limits for "Passenger Automobiles"
IRC §280F(a) imposes dollar limitations on the depreciation and IRC § 179 expensing deductions that can be taken for passenger automobiles. This limitation is often referred to as the “luxury automobile depreciation limitation,” even though it applies to vehicles not commonly considered “luxury automobiles.” Passenger automobiles, by definition, weigh 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight or less. Cars, trucks and vans falling within these weight limits are subject to the 280F limitation. SUVs are treated as trucks for the purpose of applying the limitation. The 280F limitation is indexed for inflation, and IRS has traditionally applied a different inflation adjustment for cars than for those vehicles on a truck chassis, including light-duty trucks and vans. Consequently, two tables have emerged for the IRC §280F(a) limitation. IRS Rev. Proc. 2017-29 set the 2017 limits as follows.
The Iowa Court of Appeals recently found that Fayette County improperly granted permits to a wind energy group to build three wind turbines on agricultural land. This opinion leaves in effect a district court order that directed the group to remove the turbines.
A Fayette County couple granted easements to several wind development companies to construct three wind turbines on their farmland. The wind group applied to the Fayette County Board of Adjustment (Board) for special use permits to construct the turbines, and the Board denied the application.
President Trump signed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 into law on February 9. The Act, which was passed to fund the federal government and avoid another shutdown, includes a number of changes to the Internal Revenue Code. Many of these changes retroactively extend--generally for one year--tax provisions which had expired at the end of 2016. Because this Act significantly impacts many 2017 returns, IRS has announced that it was reviewing the legislation and would provide additional information as quickly as possible. Not in the Act was any change to the qualified cooperative dividend deduction implemented by the new tax law. Although earlier reports had suggested that a "fix" would be inserted into the budget bill, it now appears that lawmakers continue to work toward crafting an appropriate solution to the controversial problem, perhaps by March 23. We will continue to keep you posted on that issue.
As of now, IRS can process three key extender benefits, the excusion from income for the discharge of qualified principal residence indebtedness, the mortgage insurance premium deduction, and the deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses.
Looking for a Handy Reference Guide?
Kristy has updated the Summary of Tax Rates and Tables for the 2018 tax year. You can access it here.


text:
Application No. 20185331 HAM submitted by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development pursuant to Article 16 of the General Municipal Law for approval of an urban development action area project, a real property tax exemption for the Disposition Area or Exemption Area pursuant to Section 577 of Article XI of the Private Housing Finance Law, for property located at Block 1729, Lot 49; Block 1822, Lot 15; Block 1924, Lot 104 and Block 2007, Lots 46, 47, and 48), in the Borough of Manhattan, Community District 10, Council District 9.
Application No. 20185269 HAX submitted by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development pursuant to Section 577 of Article XI of the Private Housing Finance Law for approval of a new real property tax exemption for property located at Block 2713, p/o Lot 2 (Tentative Lot 20), Borough of the Bronx, Community District 2, Council District 17.
Application No. 20185271 HAM submitted by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development pursuant to Section 577 of Article XI of the Private Housing Finance Law for approval of a new real property tax exemption for property located at Block 2047, Lots 7 and 10, Borough of Manhattan, Community District 10, Council District 9.
Application No. 20185329 HAK submitted by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development pursuant to Section 577 of Article XI of the Private Housing Finance Law for approval of a new real property tax exemption for property located at Block 1499, Lot 13 and Block 1502, Lot 18, Borough of Brooklyn, Community District 16, Council District 41.
Application No. 20185330 HAM submitted by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development pursuant to Article 16 of the General Municipal Law for approval of an urban development action area project, pursuant to Section 577 of Article XI of the Private Housing Finance Law for a real property tax exemption for the Exemption Area, waiver of the area designation requirement, and waiver of Sections 197-c and 197-d of the New York City Charter for property located at 280 East 3rd Street (Block 372, Lot 12) and 230 East 4th Street (Block 399, Lot 24), Borough of Manhattan, Community District 3, Council District 2.
Application No. 20185332 HAM submitted by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development pursuant to Article 16 of the General Municipal Law for approval of an urban development action area project, a real property tax exemption for the Disposition Area pursuant to Section 577 of Article XI of the Private Housing Finance Law, for property located at 615 West 150th Street and 601 West 148th Street, Borough of Manhattan, Community District 9, Council District 7.
Resolution calling on the United State Supreme Court to protect public sector collective bargaining in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).
The interest rate be 7 percent per annum for Fiscal Year 2019 for non-payment of taxes on properties with an assessed value of not more than $250,000, or not more than $250,000 per residential unit for cooperative apartments.
Resolution calling upon the United States Congress to pass, and the President to sign, H.R. 2358, which would provide an award of a single Congressional Gold Medal to the Chinese-American Veterans of World War II in recognition of their dedicated service during World War II.
Resolution approving an amendment to a previously approved exemption from real property taxes for property located at (Block 2422, Lot 30) Bronx, pursuant to Section 577 of the Private Housing Finance Law (Preconsidered L.U. No. 100).
Resolution calling upon the New York City Department of Education to enforce Chancellor's Regulation A-801, which requires that students on school buses wear seat belts until the bus comes to a destination stop.
The interest rate be 18 percent per annum for Fiscal Year 2019 for non-payment of taxes on properties with an assessed value of over $250,000, or over $250,000 per residential unit for cooperative apartments.
Resolution approving an exemption from real property taxes for property located at (Block 2762, Lot 1003) Bronx, pursuant to Section 577 of the Private Housing Finance Law (Preconsidered L.U. No. 101).
Resolution approving an exemption from real property taxes for property located at (Block 3627, Lots 20, 30, 40 and 50) Bronx, pursuant to Section 577 of the Private Housing Finance Law (Preconsidered L.U. No. 98).
Resolution approving an exemption from real property taxes for property located at (Block 2117, Lot 34 Block 2119, Lots 58 and 66) Manhattan, pursuant to Section 577 of the Private Housing Finance Law (Preconsidered L.U. No. 96).
Resolution approving an amendment to a previously approved exemption from real property taxes for property located at (Block 3118, Lots 42, 44, Block 3130, Lot 2) Bronx, pursuant to Section 577 of the Private Housing Finance Law (Preconsidered L.U. No. 95).
The discount percentage for early payment of real estate taxes be set at one-half of one percent per annum for Fiscal Year 2019.
Resolution approving an exemption from real property taxes for property located at (Block 15537, p/o Lot 1) Queens, pursuant to Section 577 of the Private Housing Finance Law (Preconsidered L.U. No. 99).
Resolution approving an exemption from real property taxes for property located at (Block 2220, Lot 43) Manhattan, pursuant to Section 577 of the Private Housing Finance Law (Preconsidered L.U. No. 97).

matches:
Application No. 20185269
Application No. 20185271
Application No. 20185329
Application No. 20185330
Application No. 20185332
v.


text:
Wooldridge, E.T. Winged Wonders. The Story of the Flying Wings. Photo available. Washington. National Air and Space Museum. 1985. 230 pps. 4to. Soft cover. Second edition. iIllustrated. Important reference work. Fine copy.
Wormser, Richard. The Yellowlegs. The Story of the United States Calvalry. Garden City. Doubleday. 1966. Octavo. Hard cover. Illustrated. Fine copy.
Wragg, David. Wings Over the Sea. A History of Naval Aviation. Photo available. New York. Arco. 1979. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Wright, Bill. Rearwin. A Story of Men, Planes, and Aircraft Manufacturing During the Great Depression. Photo available. Manhattan. Sunflower University Press. 1997. 300 pps. 4to. Soft cover. First edition. Illustrated. Important reference work. Fine copy (spine lightly faded).
Wright, Jack Edward. Crash and Burn. Signed by the author. The Survival Story of a Fighter Pilot. Photo available. Enumclaw. WinePress. 2003. Octavo. Soft cover. First edition. Illustrated. Signed by the author. Fine copy.
Wright, John D. Timeline of the Civil War. The Ultimate Guide to the War that Defined America. With foldout time line. Photo available. London. Amber. 2007. 4to. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated in black, white and color. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Wright, Peter. Spy Catcher. The Candid Autobiography of a Senior Intelligence Officer. New York. Viking Press. 1987. 392 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. First American edition. Fine copy (blind stamp on end paper) in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Wright, Robert. Soldier-Statesmen of the Constitution. Washington. Center of Military History. 1987. 4to. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated in black, white and color. Fine copy.
Wulf, Joseph. Die Bildenden Kunste im Ditten Reich. Photo available. Verlag. Sigbert Mohn. 1963. 413 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated. Important reference work. Ex-libris. Usual markings, in dust jacket (in mylar).
Wyden, Peter. Bay of Pigs. The Untold Story. Photo available. New York. Simon and Schuster. 1979. Octavo. Hard cover. Reprint. Illustrated. Fine copy in near fine (spine sunned) dust jacket (in mylar).
Wyden, Peter. The Hitler Virus. The Insidious Legacy of Adolf Hitler. Photo available. New York. Arcade. 2001. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Wynne, Greville. Contact on Gorky Street. New York. Atheneum. 1968. 222 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy (owner name on end paper) in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Yahil, Leni. The Holocaust. The Fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945. New York. Oxford University Press. 1990. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Yallop, David A. In God's Name. An Investigation into the Murder of Pope John Paul I. Toronto. Bantam. 1984. Octavo. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Yenne, Bill (ed). Aircraft of the U.S. Air Force and Its NATO Allies. New York. Bison Books. 1987. 224 pps. 4to. Hardcover. Reprint. Fine copy in very good (light shelf wear) dust jacket (in mylar).
Yenne, Bill. U.S. Air Power. Fighters, Bombers, Recon, Helicopters and Much More. New York. Portland House. 1989. 320 pps. 4to. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated in color and black & white. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Yerger, Mark C. Ernst August Krag. SS-Sturmbannfuhrer. Holder of the Knight's Cross With Oak Leaves. Atglen. Schiffer. 1996. 4to. Soft cover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy (owner blind stamp).
Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. The Untold Human Story of Life Under Spanish Fascism. Indianapolis. Bobbs-Merrill. 1977. 271 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. First edition. Fine copy in near fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Young, Alan. Tudor and Jacobean Tournaments. Photo available. Dobbs Ferry. Sheridan House. 1987. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).

matches:
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine


text:
Taxpayers have been able to avoid income tax liability by assigning the right to receive contingent payments to another taxpayer. The courts have placed limits on such transactions going back to a Supreme Court decision when it ruled that fruits cannot be attributed to a different tree from which it grew. In another Supreme Court decision, commissions were taxed to the assignor because his rights to receive the payments were not uncertain and the fruit had sufficiently ripened on his tree. However, in one case where the entire business along with the income was transferred, the tree would be deemed transferred with the fruit and the income taxed to the assignee. Other cases have ruled for the taxpayer when the right to future income was sufficiently uncertain.
Under the proper circumstances, this restrictive doctrine does not apply to an assignment of contingent fees to a partnership. This exception allows for some tax planning involving a family limited partnership for which the author provides an example.
In some instances, taxpayers have been able to avoid income tax liability by assigning the right to receive contingent payments to another taxpayer. Nevertheless, taxpayers have discovered that avoiding tax liability on contingent fees only applies in a limited set of circumstances, as Richard Kochansky discovered in a recent decision against him. Although Kochansky was not allowed to assign contingent fees in this case, the IRS did not assess a negligence penalty for relying on a prior case in which the taxpayer successfully assigned contingent fees.
By not imposing the negligence penalty, the IRS implied that it was reasonable for Kochansky to rely on A.R. Jones, a case that allowed a taxpayer to assign contingent fees without incurring any tax liability. This outcome leaves a question as to under what circumstances a taxpayer can assign contingent fees and avoid tax liability for those fees. This question will be answered in three parts. First is a review and summary of the statutory, judicial, and administrative interpretations relating to the assignment of contingent fees. Second is a delineation and analysis of the critical elements in determining when contingent fees can be assigned without incurring tax liability. Finally, there is a suggestion on how to structure transactions to assign contingent income and avoid tax liability.
Under IRC section 61, gross income includes all compensation and commissions, which are includable in income in the year recognized by the taxpayer based on the taxpayer's accounting method. According to Reg. section 1.446-3(c), cash basis taxpayers generally report income in the year received (or constructively received), and accrual basis taxpayers generally report income when the "all events" test is met. Although contingent fees are not includable in income under the cash or accrual accounting methods, it can be inferred that they will be taxed to the one who earned them since these future payments would be compensation for services rendered. Because this is not clearly spelled out in the IRC, however, it has been left to the courts to articulate to whom contingent fees should be taxed.
Lucas v. Earl. The idea of avoiding tax liability by assigning the right to receive income earned by the taxpayer to another is not new. As early as 1930, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on this issue in Lucas v. Earl. In this landmark ruling, taxpayer and his spouse entered into a valid contract stating that all property and earnings "shall be treated and considered . . . to be . . . owned by us [taxpayer and spouse] as joint tenants . . . with rights of survivorship." The question before the court was to whom should salary and fees earned by taxpayer be taxed. The court ruled that "the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them and provide that the tax could not be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts . . . to prevent the salary when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it." The opinion concluded with the often cited tree-and-fruit metaphor: The fruits cannot be attributed to a different tree from that on which they grew.
Hall. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals used the same logic as Eubank when it ruled that future insurance renewal commissions were taxable to the salesperson-assignor even though the assignor (Hall) transferred the agency contracts (which contained the right to receive the renewal commissions) to his spouse. Taxpayer argued that the tree (the agency contracts) was transferred with the fruit (the renewal commissions). Nonetheless, the court felt the commissions were derived from the taxpayer's services and not from the agency contracts. However, if the assignor transferred the entire insurance business along with the insurance contracts to the assignee as in Jones v. Corbyn, the tree would have been deemed transferred with the fruit, and the commission income would be taxable to the assignee. Therefore, in Hall, the fruit ripened on the taxpayer's tree, and assigning the right to receive that income did not relieve the taxpayer of his tax liability regarding that income.
Cold Metal. Within a year after W.B. Hall, the limits of the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine was tested concerning its application to the assignment of truly uncertain future income in Cold Metal Process Co. In this case, taxpayer (a corporation) owned patents, but could not receive claims for patent infringements or royalties relating to the patents until lawsuits brought against the corporation by the U.S. were settled. This situation made the receipt of patent infringement claims and royalties contingent on the outcome of the lawsuits. Before the lawsuits were settled, taxpayer corporation was liquidated and all assets were transferred to a trustee, including the right to receive the claims for patent infringement and royalties pending the outcome of litigation. The court ruled that the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine did not apply because the "absolute and unconditional assignment by it [taxpayer corporation] . . . of the income producing property [the patents] together with a contingent right to income therefrom, payable, if at all, at some indefinite time in the future in an indeterminate amount, with respect to which the assignor [taxpayer corporation] had no voice or control whatsoever, prevents us from treating the case as one involving the anticipatory assignment of income, which when paid becomes taxable to the assignor."
Jones. Subsequent rulings also allowed anticipatory assignments when the right to future income was sufficiently uncertain. For example, taxpayer in A.R. Jones performed $350,000 of services for the U.S. government for which he was not compensated. After nine years of negotiations with the government--including a lawsuit--to collect the $350,000, taxpayer (an individual) transferred the claim to a recently formed corporation (taxpayer owned 67% of the assignee corporation, but possessed only one of four votes on the board of directors) for $10,000 (taxpayer needed the money to pay income taxes). Nine months after the transfer, the court made its final decision in favor of taxpayer. The following tax year, taxpayer received the settlement and promptly remitted the funds to the assignee corporation. The court ruled that "the claim . . . by means of which the funds were realized, was at the time of assignment . . . uncertain, doubtful, and contingent. . . . The assignment in this case was full, complete, final, and definite. When this assignment was made over five months before the court . . . announced its decision, over nine months before the decision became final, and over 14 months before payment was received, the 'tree' appeared to be blighted and almost devoid of life." Thus, the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine did not apply because the fruit did not ripen until the tree was transferred to the assignee corporation.
Dodge. The case of Dodge is another example in which the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine did not apply. Partner A offered to leave one-half of his estate to Partner B's daughter if B performed all of the work for AB partnership (A and B were brothers). Partner A refused to put the agreement in writing. This agreement took place 30 years before A's death. B performed all partnership work. One year before death (1963), A rewrote his will, leaving nothing to B's daughter (A died in 1964). Daughter filed an action in 1965 against A's estate to enforce the oral promise. B died in 1967 and B's daughter won the action in 1968. The IRS contended that the proceeds from A's estate were income in respect of a decedent to B under the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine because B's daughter's inheritance was the compensation for B's work on the partnership. However, the court ruled the anticipatory assignment of doctrine did not apply because the right to that income was doubtful, uncertain, and contingent in view of the facts (the claim had to be litigated). Once again, the fruit had not sufficiently ripened on the tree.
Kochansky. Although W.B. Hall and Dodge allowed taxpayers to avoid taxation on contingent income that was anticipatorily assigned to another, the fact that income is contingent on some future event is only one factor the courts use to determine tax consequences. In Kochansky, the taxpayer assigned to his ex-wife (in a divorce settlement) a portion of legal fees contingent on the outcome of a case he was litigating. Taxpayer won the case and remitted the assigned portion to his ex-wife. The court ruled that even though the taxpayer's fee was contingent on the successful outcome of litigation, the fees were clearly compensation for his legal services. As a result, the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine applies because the fruit had ripened on the taxpayer's tree.
and report partnership income in amounts different from their contributions to the pool.
Taxpayer (an attorney) received referral fees from Old Firm (where he was an associate) while he was a partner in New Firm. Collection of the referral fees was contingent on Old Firm receiving revenue from the referred client. Taxpayer remitted all referral fees received from Old Firm to New Firm in accordance with New Firm's partnership agreement (partnership agreement states that all fees arising from the practice of law be remitted to New Firm). At the end of the year, taxpayer received his distributive share of New Firm's partnership income according to his percentage share of partnership profits. Thus, the promise to remit fees not yet earned to New Firm was an anticipatory assignment of income.
However, the court, citing Rev. Rul. 64-90 (which states that a taxpayer may assign income to a partnership), held this anticipatory assignment of income to be valid because it believed Congress implicitly intended subchapter K to allow the pooling of income and losses of partners--as long as the type of income earned bears sufficient nexus to partnership activities (see for example Leininger.) The court further added that this situation is analogous to attributing income to a personal service corporation when a corporate employee performs labors that give rise to the income (e.g., C. Johnson). Finally, the court concluded that Lucas v. Earl does not apply because there is no assignment of income since it is the partnership that earned the fees.
The analysis of the above case law indicates the taxpayer liable for reporting assigned contingent fees upon realization depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Specifically, the assignment of income doctrine can be avoided in many instances. However, several factors appear to be paramount in making such a determination.
Assignor's Effort to Generate Income. If the income is realized through only the assignor's efforts (the assignee did not have to expend any effort to realize the income) as was the case in Lucas v. Earl, Eubank, W.B. Hall, and Kochansky, income will be taxable to the assignor when it is realized even if realization is uncertain. However, if the source of the income is transferred along with right to receive future income as in Jones v. Corbyn, then realization of the future income will be taxable to the assignee. Therefore, when contingent fees are realized due to only the assignor's efforts, they will be attributed to the assignor unless other mitigating factors are present (e.g., transferring the source of the income with the right to receive future income).
Likelihood of Income Realization and Assignee Effort. Transferring the source of income (i.e., the business from which the income was derived) is only one way to shift the tax liability for contingent income to another taxpayer. When the taxpayer wants to transfer the tax liability for contingent income without transferring the source of that income, he or she must consider 1) the likelihood that income will be realized solely through his or her efforts and 2) the amount of effort the taxpayer must expend to realize that income. In Dodge, the court deemed that realization of the assigned right to future income was sufficiently doubtful based on the nature of the assigned right (30 years before assignor's death, assignor orally promised to leave one-half of his estate to assignee if assignor's partner [assignee's father] performed all partnership-related work). The judiciary also considered the amount of effort expended by the assignee (assignee realized income only after three years of litigation) to be equally important in determining the likelihood of income realization. Thus, to determine the likelihood of income realization by the assignee, the courts equally weighted the amount of effort expended by the assignee (to realize the income) and the underlying nature of the contingency.
Timing Issue. Another factor the courts used to determine the likelihood contingent income would be realized is the date the assignment was made. In Cold Metal Press Co., and A.R. Jones, the assignors transferred both the income source and the right to receive future income. As noted above in Jones v. Corbyn, income will be attributed to the assignee if the tree is transferred with the fruit. Moreover, in Cold Metal Press Co. and A.R. Jones, the courts had to decide if the fruit had sufficiently ripened on the assignors' trees as of the date of transfer. If the fruit had sufficiently ripened, income would be attributed to the assignor. Unlike Dodge, the date of the assignment in both Cold Metal Press Co. and A.R. Jones was critical to the courts' determination of the likelihood the assignees would realize income (i.e., based on the nature of the contingency and the assignees' efforts). Therefore, even if the tree is transferred with the fruit, realization of future income will accrue to the assignor if the fruit has sufficiently ripened while the assignor still held the tree.
Assignment of Contingent Fees to a Partnership. The overriding question in the cases analyzed thus far was how to apply the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine. However, when contingent fees are assigned to a partnership, the judiciary had to determine if the anticipatory assignment of doctrine applied. Schneer illustrated the court's belief that the entity approach should be applied to a partnership under Subchapter K. This meant a partnership agreement could require the assignment of contingent fees (bearing sufficient nexus to partnership activities) to the partnership--whether or not the partner was acting in his or her capacity as a partner--and allocate partnership income without regard to who actually earned it. As a result, the assignment of income from a partner to a partnership is outside the scope of the assignment of income doctrine provided the income was earned while a partner. For a summary of the critical factors in assignment of income cases, see the Exhibit.
The analysis of case law regarding the assignment of contingent fees to a partnership reveals an opportunity to use such an assignment to shift income to family members with low marginal tax rates by allocating profits to partners whose efforts did not produce the income. If a taxpayer has children who do not work for the partnership, allocating income to them can be accomplished with a family limited partnership, provided certain conditions are met. By making the children limited partners, they are not required (nor are they allowed) to participate in management activities. These rules apply whether the children purchase their partnership interests or acquire them by gift (or use capital from a gift to obtain such interest).
If the partnership interest was acquired by gift, the first requirement that must be met is that the donor must have, in fact, relinquished sufficient control over the gifted property or interest to create a bona fide partnership relationship. Otherwise, the children's partnership interests will be ignored for tax purposes. Therefore, the donor parent must be certain that he or she is willing to give the children an interest in partnership assets and have the other partners acknowledge that the children are partners.
Since the children will have only a capital interest in the partnership, the second condition that must be met is that capital must be a material income-producing factor. Given that the goal of this partnership is to assign contingent fees, the partnership will likely derive most of its income from fees or commissions. Although compensation for personal services is prima facie evidence that capital is not a material income-producing factor, Poggetto indicates that capital is material when it is necessary to meet the business needs of the partnership. Consequently, the parent must show a need for the children's capital, such as the purchase of new equipment, to justify the need for the children's capital contributions.
One more condition must be met regarding ownership of the partnership interest. Where minor children cannot demonstrate that they are competent to manage their own property, the partnership interest should be held in trust. Additionally, the trustee should be unrelated and independent of the parent partner. Therefore, a prudent taxpayer should place children's partnership interests in a trust with an independent trustee to avoid having the partnership interest disregarded for tax purposes.
Complying with the above rules insures the children have a bona fide limited partnership interest in their parent's personal service partnership, but IRC section 704(e)(2) prevents a parent from allocating substantially all partnership income to the children (even assuming the allocation has substantial economic effect). According to Reg. section 1.704-1(e)(3), family partnership income must be distributed proportionate to capital interests after distributing reasonable compensation to the parent partner for his/her services rendered to the partnership.
The following is an example of how this might be done.
Dana operates a successful personal-injury law practice as a sole proprietorship. Her fees are based on a percentage of her clients' judgments. Thus, the income is contingent on the outcome of each case.
Desiring to reduce the family tax liability, she gives $10,000 to each of her two children, Randy (19) and Sonia (21). Dana, Randy, and Sonia subsequently form the DRS limited partnership. The children are not minors, so their interests do not need to be held in trust.
Dana contributes $80,000 of noncash assets (basis and FMV) for an 80% general partnership interest and Randy and Sonia each contribute $10,000 for their 10% limited partnership interests. It is immaterial whether the children acquired their interest by direct gift or purchased an interest with gifted money.
Dana uses the $20,000 cash to upgrade the partnership's computer system and update her law library with CD-ROM and online reference materials. This should satisfy the "income as a material income-producing factor" requirement because the partnership had no other cash.
During the year, DRS had net income of $250,000. If Dana were an associate attorney at another law firm, compensation for her services would be approximately $100,000. This establishes a logical basis to determine reasonable compensation for services rendered.
Therefore, the first $100,000 is allocated to Dana. Reasonable compensation for services rendered must first be allocated to the service-providing partner.
Dana also receives $120,000 [($250,000  $100,000) x 80%] of the remaining profits for a total allocation of $220,000. Randy and Sonia each receive $15,000 [($250,000  $100,000) x 10%]. The remaining profits are allocated proportionate to partners' capital interests.
Richard I. Newmark, PhD, CPA, is an assistant professor and Ted D. Englebrecht, PhD, CPA, a professor and Eminent Scholar, both at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


§ 209-1 Merchandise displays restricted.
§ 209-2 Violations and penalties.
§ 209-3 Duties of property owners.
§ 209-4 Notice to grade, pave or repair.
§ 209-5 Signing of notice; service.
§ 209-6 Work done by borough; costs.
§ 209-7 Definitions and word usage.
§ 209-8 Removal of snow and ice.
§ 209-9 Maintenance and repairs.
§ 209-12 Definitions and word usage.
§ 209-18 Exemptions from bond requirements.
§ 209-19 Direction of work; regulations.
§ 209-21 Noncompletion or abandonment of work.
§ 209-23 Indemnification of borough.
§ 209-24 Exemptions from insurance requirements.
§ 209-25 Refusal of additional permits.
§ 209-26 Violations and penalties.
§ 209-28 Violations and penalties.
§ 209-30 Violations and penalties.
§ 209-34 Definitions and word usage.
§ 209-36 Application for permit.
§ 209-37 Application and permit fees.
§ 209-41 Noncompletion or abandonment.
§ 209-43 Refusal of permits.
§ 209-44 Violations and penalties.
Noise — See Ch. 161.
Property maintenance — See Ch. 185.
Vending machines — See Ch. 237.


text:
Elizabeth is a versatile and skilled trial attorney who has focused on civil litigation at Peabody & Arnold since law school. She represents businesses and employers of all sizes in state and federal courts and administrative agencies in Massachusetts. Her experience includes significant first chair trial experience in several areas of the law, including the successful defense of employment discrimination and premises liability trials. Always practical and engaged, Elizabeth works as a team with her clients — giving straightforward advice in clear language — to reach successful outcomes from pre-suit advice through every stage of litigation. Her clients rely on her judgment and acumen to assist them throughout the litigation process, while opposing counsel appreciate her professionalism. In addition to her trial work, Elizabeth has appellate experience in both state and federal courts.
Panelist, Ethics Presentation, Practicing with Professionalism Course, Boston Bar Association (August 2016).
Co-Author, “Using Joint Defense Privilege Agreements in Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings,” Defense Counsel Journal (October 2001).
Co-Author, “Recent Developments Affecting the Liability of Professionals, Officers, and Directors,” 38 Tort, Trial & Ins. L.J. 585 (2003).
Leary v. Archstone North Point, LLC, Middlesex Super. Ct. Civ. A. No. 2011-02495 (January 2016)(obtained defense verdict on negligent security claim in 7-day jury trial).
Dumeus v. Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Middlesex Super. Ct. Civ. A. No. 2012-4633 (June 2015)(obtained defense verdict on national origin discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation claims in 8-day jury trial). This verdict was upheld on appeal. Dumeus v. Newton-Wellesley Hospital, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 1103 (2017) (Rule 1:28 Disposition).
Nystedt v. Nigro, 700 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2012)(affirming dismissal of claims against court-appointed discovery master on qualified immunity grounds).
O’Donnell v. Boggs, 611 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2010)(affirming summary judgment for employer on grounds that state law tortious interference claim completely preempted by Labor Management Relations Act).
One to One Interactive, LLC v. Landrith, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 142 (2010)(reversing multi-million- dollar jury verdict against two individual company founders/clients on tortious interference claim, and remanding for new trial).
Pansé v. Massachusetts, et al., 129 S. Ct. 912 (2009), 2009 WL 56231 (Mem.) (Jan. 12, 2009)(denial by U.S. Supreme Court of plaintiff’s petition for writ of certiorari where First Circuit had affirmed dismissal of all of plaintiff’s claims against multiple defendants for alleged civil rights violations, including ex-wife’s divorce attorneys).
Rodi v. Southern New England School of Law, 532 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2008)(affirming summary judgment for law school on claims by graduate of fraudulent misrepresentation regarding accreditation).
Before practicing law, Elizabeth was a competitive figure skater in Canada, a professional ice show skater in Europe, and a college professor of French language and literature with an interest in women writers and the Occupation of France during the Second World War. She is fluent in French and still loves to travel.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.