- 24 -
an illegal abortion clinic, and a building company) in which they
were each active participants in the business operations. In the
instant case we are presented with two sisters who, through a
regimen of frugal living, were able to amass a substantial amount
of savings and assets. We find that Ryza is of no help in
determining the existence of a partnership in this case.
Elizabeth and Birnie were mere passive co-owners of property.
Cf. Vanderschraaf v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-306
(Partnerships did not constitute mere passive co-owners of
property; partnerships entered into transactions, formed joint
ventures, operated gas wells, and engaged in various other
activities).8
The elements of a completed gift under Oklahoma law are:
(1) Intention to give, (2) complete delivery, and (3) acceptance
by the donee. In re Estate of Carano, 868 P.2d 699 (Okla. 1994);
McSpadden v. Mahoney, 431 P.2d 432 (Okla. 1967). The sales
agreements and the deed of gift as well as the testimony
presented at trial convince us that Birnie intended to make full
or partial gifts to her niece and nephews. After Birnie's
8 Similarly, petitioner's reliance on McCleary v. Brown,
119 P.2d 830 (Okla. 1941), is misplaced. Petitioner relies on
McCleary as authority for the proposition that a surviving
partner's failure to assert his statutory right of possession to
partnership property for dissolution constitutes a waiver of his
rights. McCleary, like Ryza v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1977-64,
is distinguishable because it involves the active conduct of a
business as opposed to the instant case which involves co-
ownership of investments.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011