- 9 -
1941) ("this requisite of certainty includes the subject-matter
or property embraced within the trust"); Garcia v. United States,
421 F.2d 1231 (5th Cir. 1970) (same).
Petitioners seek to shift the characterization as grantor to
McCormick and Furman by arguing that they furnished the
consideration for the transfer of the partnership interest and
that the decided cases reflect the view that the person who
furnishes consideration for a transfer in trust is treated as the
grantor. Initially, we note that section 15200 of the California
Probate Code requires only the "transfer" of property. Supra p.
7. We have found no basis for concluding that a person cannot
create a trust by means of a sale for consideration. Indeed, by
providing that consideration is not "required", Cal. Prob. Code
sec. 15208 (West 1991), clearly implies that the creation of a
trust may involve receipt of a quid pro quo.6 See also
Restatement, Trusts 2d, secs. 29 and 30 (1959); Peschel &
Spurgeon, Federal Taxation of Trusts, Grantors and Beneficiaries,
par. 2.05, pp. 2-14 to 2-19 (2d ed. 1989). Thus, the fact that
Meek received consideration for the transfer in the form of a
promissory note from McCormick and Furman as trustees does not
6 Cal. Prob. Code sec. 15208 (West 1991), states:
Consideration is not required to create a trust,
but a promise to create a trust in the future is
enforceable only if the requirements for an enforceable
contract are satisfied.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011