Elizabeth B. Miller - Page 16

                                       - 16 -                                         

               The parties agree that petitioner transferred $100,000 to              
          each of her sons during 1982.  The only dispute here is whether             
          the transfers at issue were loans or gifts.  Petitioners contend            
          that each of those transfers was in form and in substance a loan,           
          and not a gift, for Federal gift tax purposes because petitioner            
          entered into a bona fide creditor-debtor relationship with each             
          of her sons at the time of such transfers.10  Respondent contends           
          that although each of the transfers at issue was, in form, a loan           
          that purported to establish such a relationship, in substance,              
          each such transfer was a gift.                                              
               The question whether a taxpayer has entered into a bona fide           
          creditor-debtor relationship pervades the Federal tax law.  See,            
          e.g., Estate of Maxwell v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 594, 603-604               
          (1992), affd. 3 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 1993); Estate of Kelley v.                
          Commissioner, 63 T.C. 321, 325 (1974); Estate of Van Anda v.                
          Commissioner, 12 T.C. 1158, 1162 (1949), affd. per curiam 192               
          F.2d 391 (2d Cir. 1951).  "Transactions within a family group are           
          subject to special scrutiny, and the presumption is that a trans-           
          fer between family members is a gift".  Harwood v. Commissioner,            
          82 T.C. 239, 258 (1984) (citing Estate of Reynolds v. Commis-               


          10  Although petitioners' argument is not entirely clear, they              
          appear to contend that under Dickman v. Commissioner, 465 U.S.              
          330 (1984), only the interest foregone on demand loans, and not             
          the principal of such loans, may be considered a gift for Federal           
          gift tax purposes.  Petitioners' reliance on Dickman is                     
          misplaced, since Dickman requires a finding of a bona fide debt.            
          That is the precise issue presented in these cases.                         



Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011