Estate of Carolyn W. Holland, Deceased, Jack K. Holland, Lewis G. Holland, Sr., and Betty H. Kann, Executors - Page 24

                                        -24-                                          
               Under section 2503(b), a donor shall exclude the first                 
          $10,000 of gifts made to each of her donees from the total amount           
          of gifts for a calendar year made to each donee.  Sec. 2503(b).             
          However, a parenthetical provision in the section forecloses any            
          exclusion for gifts of future interests in property.  Id.  A                
          future interest is one that is "limited to commence in use,                 
          possession, or enjoyment at some future date or time."  Sec.                
          25.2503-3(a), Gift Tax Regs.  The Supreme Court stated in Fondren           
          v. Commissioner, 324 U.S. 18, 20 (1945):                                    
               it is not enough to bring the exclusion into force that the            
               donee has vested rights.  In addition he must have the right           
               presently to use, possess or enjoy the property.  These                
               terms are not words of art, like 'fee' in the law of seizin            
               * * * , but connote the right to substantial present                   
               economic benefit.  The question is of time, not when title             
               vests, but when enjoyment begins. * * *                                
               Petitioner cites Foley v. Allen, 170 F.2d 434 (5th Cir.                
          1948),11 as support for its argument that the transfers by                  
          decedent were completed gifts.  In Foley, a mother gave her son a           
          gift of 200 shares of stock that she had pledged to First                   
          National Bank of Atlanta as security for loans the bank had                 
          earlier made to her.  The Commissioner contended that the mother            
          retained dominion and control over the property as it remained              
          pledged to the bank for her indebtedness at the time of transfer.           
          Therefore, according to the Commissioner, there was no completed            


               11   In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209                
          (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh           
          Circuit adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the            
          former Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit handed down prior             
          to the close of business on Sept. 30, 1981.                                 


Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011