- 11 -
of the other factors discussed herein which cause us to conclude
that interests in the bonds themselves were the subject matter of
the gifts. Moreover, the tax impact of the gifts, i.e., the
potential loss, at an indeterminate future date, of a portion of
petitioner's estate tax exemption by virtue of the utilization of
the unified credit is a far cry from the income tax consequences
of the receipt of wages by Hansen in Richard Hansen Land, Inc. v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-248.
Petitioner's principal argument rests on the absence of any
legal obligation on Nancy, Meredith, or Permenter to use the
funds provided by petitioner to acquire the remaining interests.
While this is an important element, it is not controlling, as our
opinion in Gordon v. Commissioner, supra, makes clear. Indeed,
as we pointed out in Gordon, the freedom of Nancy, Meredith, and
Permenter legally to refuse to utilize the funds provided by
petitioner to pay for the remaining interests "is of minimal
significance where * * * the facts reveal that the entire
transaction was set up around the expectation that the joint
implementation of the * * * [taxpayer's] investment strategy
would occur." Gordon v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. at 331 n.16. We
think that the pattern of the transactions herein unquestionably
falls within the "expectation" parameter.9 Unquestionably,
petitioner was the architect of the investment strategy and
9 Cf. Muserlian v. Commissioner, 932 F.2d 109, 113 (2d Cir.
1991, affg. T.C. Memo. 1989-493.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011