Forest L. Buckmaster - Page 13

                                                - 13 -                                                   
            Management.  Petitioner asks the Court to find as a fact that he                             
            transferred his entire beneficial interest in Ideal Management to                            
            Clark for no consideration 1 day after he joined Ideal                                       
            Management.  We decline to do so.  The facts of this case                                    
            preclude such a finding.  Ideal Management's minutes for an                                  
            April 1989 meeting, for example, state that all 100 capital units                            
            would revert back to petitioner and Webb upon Clark's                                        
            liquidation.  Likewise, Clark's address during 1992 was                                      
            petitioner's home address, which points to the conclusions that                              
            petitioner controlled Clark and that the purported transfer of                               
            the capital units to Clark did not actually give Clark any                                   
            meaningful rights or interests in Ideal Management.  We also                                 
            believe it is implausible that petitioner would have transferred                             
            away all of his legal and beneficial interests in his assets,                                
            including the tools of his trade, for practically nothing in                                 
            return.  Following our review of the record, we are satisfied                                
            that petitioner was the actual beneficiary of Ideal Management.                              
            See United States v. Scott, supra at 1572.                                                   
                  As to the fourth factor, we find that petitioner was not                               
            bound by any restrictions imposed by Ideal Management or the law                             
            of trusts as to the use of the transferred property.                                         
            Petitioner's unrestricted use of Ideal Management's property                                 
            leads us to believe that it was not restricted in any meaningful                             
            manner, including fiduciary restraints.                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011