- 10 -
necessarily militate against treating him as the grantor. Nor
are we persuaded that, under the circumstances herein, the fact
that McCormick and Furman furnished consideration requires that
they and not Meek be treated as the grantor of the trust.
Petitioners point to Mahoney v. United States, 831 F.2d 641
(6th Cir. 1987), for the proposition that a settlor must
contribute property to a trust gratuitously. We do not agree
that Mahoney supports such a proposition. In that case, a third
party who was designated as a beneficiary of a trust had given
consideration for the transfer of property into the trust. The
court held the beneficiary was the effective grantor to the
extent of his payment of consideration. However, this is a
different situation than the one before us where it is the
trustees, on behalf of the trust, who furnished consideration for
the trust property and who did not participate to any degree in
the dispositive provisions of the trust. The same distinction
applies to Security-First Natl. Bank v. Wright, supra, and the
hypothetical situation discussed in IIA Scott, Trusts, sec. 156.3
(4th ed. 1987).
Petitioners also cite Lehman v. Commissioner, 109 F.2d 99
(2d Cir. 1940), affg. 39 B.T.A. 17 (1939), for the proposition
that a person is a settlor of a trust if he furnishes
consideration for the trust. Lehman involved reciprocal trusts
and the taxpayer, who furnished consideration in the form of a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011