-19-
proving that the $90,000 transfer was a gift. To the contrary,
the evidence, both that submitted by respondent and the testimony
of Jack, supports a finding that, in substance, decedent
purchased the interests held by her children in the property and
conveyed them to the Carolyn Trust.
Furthermore, in 1986, the family decided to offer the whole
of its property, including the Weinstock Residence and the
undeveloped property, for sale as a single contiguous unit. For
some time prior to that decision, decedent's cash requirements
were being met by a series of loans, and it is undeniable that
she expected the substantial gain she would realize on the sale
of the property to allow her to retire the loans and eliminate
her liquidity problems. The facts, therefore, show that decedent
had a substantial interest in the sale of the whole property
proceeding unimpeded by minor problems with title to a small
portion of it.
Accordingly, we find, based on the facts and circumstances,
that decedent's transfer of $90,000 to Lewis, Betty, and Jack in
1987 was paid in consideration of the transfer of their interests
in the Weinstock Residence to the Carolyn Trust.
Issue 2. Whether the 12 $10,000 Annual Gifts Decedent Made in
Each of the Years of 1985 Through 1988 Were Transfers of Present
Interests That Qualify for the Exclusion under Section 2503(b)
In 1985, decedent began a program of making annual gifts to
Lewis, Betty, and Jack, and her daughter-in-law, Ellen, and the
eight Weinstock Trusts that benefited her grandchildren
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011