- 25 - for the Ninth Circuit held that the decedent did not receive adequate and full consideration under section 2036(a). United States v. Past, supra at 12-14. Whether the consideration received by Cyril under the 1951 Agreement was "adequate and full" within the meaning of section 2036(a) must be determined by comparing the value of what Cyril received on October 31, 1951, with the October 31, 1951, value of the stock that Cyril owned and agreed to transfer to his children at his death; i.e., the value that otherwise would have been included in his gross estate by virtue of the retained life estate. Id. at 12; United States v. Allen, 293 F.2d 916, 918 (10th Cir. 1961); Estate of D'Ambrosio v. Commissioner, supra at 260; Estate of Gregory v. Commissioner, 39 T.C. at 1016; Gradow v. United States, 11 Cl. Ct. 808 (1987), affd. 897 F.2d 516 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Such measurement is consistent with the purpose behind the "adequate and full consideration" exception--to prevent the depletion of the decedent's estate. Commissioner v. Wemyss, 324 U.S. at 307; Commissioner v. Bristol, 121 F.2d at 134; Estate of Frothingham v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. at 215-216. Accordingly, we hold that the consideration received by Cyril under the 1951 Agreement was not "adequate and full" within the meaning of section 2036(a), and, therefore, the value of the trusts that Cyril created in 1971 must be included in his grossPage: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011