- 21 -
Gregory v. Commissioner, 39 T.C. 1012, 1016 (1963). Rather, the
exception contemplates
the kind of consideration which in an arm's length
business transaction provides the transferor of
property with the full value thereof, in exchange; and
that if the consideration is not paid in money,
property, or services, but is represented by some
benefit, then the benefit must be of the equivalent
money value in order to constitute the required
"adequate and full consideration." * * * [Estate of
Goetchius v. Commissioner, 17 T.C. 495, 503 (1951).]
We note that transactions among family members are subject to
particular scrutiny to determine whether they represent a true
arm's-length bargain or merely a cooperative attempt to make a
testamentary disposition. Estate of Huntington v. Commissioner,
16 F.3d 462, 466-467 (1st Cir. 1994), affg. 100 T.C. 313 (1993);
Bank of New York v. United States, 526 F.2d 1012, 1016-1017 (3d
Cir. 1975); Estate of Morse v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 408, 418
(1977), affd. 625 F.2d 133 (6th Cir. 1980). This is not to say,
however, that transactions between family members can never be
for consideration in money or money's worth. Estate of
Huntington v. Commissioner, supra; Leopold v. United States, 510
F.2d 617, 623 (9th Cir. 1975); Estate of Morse v. Commissioner,
supra at 419. "Even a family agreement, although achieved
without apparent bitterness, has been regarded as bargained for
when members of the family had interests contrary to those of
other members of the family." Bank of New York v. United States,
supra at 1017 (fn. ref. omitted).
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011