- 20 -
reduces the amount that is includable under section 2036 by the
value of any consideration received by the decedent.
On November 22, 1993, respondent filed a Motion for Leave to
File an Amended Answer, which this Court granted. In her amended
answer, respondent asserted a deficiency in petitioner's estate
tax of $2,079,213 based in part on respondent's revised
determination that decedent received no consideration for the
transfer and that the entire value of the three trusts was
includable in the gross estate.
Respondent's assertion in the amended answer that there was
no consideration clearly increased the original deficiency.
Accordingly, we find that the issues of whether there was any
consideration and whether the consideration was less than $43,878
are new matters, in respect of which the burden of proof falls on
respondent. However, the burden of proof with respect to the
other issues remains on petitioner. Rule 142(a).
The requirement that there must be "adequate and full
consideration" in order to trigger the exception in section 2036
is to prevent the depletion of the decedent's estate. Estate of
Frothingham v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 211, 215-216 (1973); see
also Commissioner v. Wemyss, 324 U.S. 303, 307 (1945);
Commissioner v. Bristol, 121 F.2d 129, 134 (1st Cir. 1941), revg.
42 B.T.A. 263 (1940). The type of consideration contemplated by
this exception is not the same as common law contractual
consideration. Commissioner v. Wemyss, supra at 306; Estate of
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011