-33-
respondent's view, the fact that the family discussed how the
children would use the gifts prior to decedent's making the
transfers, and then pooled the gifts to buy a CD that Jack
pledged as security for his guarantee, is evidence of this
agreement. We disagree.
There is no evidence to support a finding that the donees'
legal ability to demand payment from the trustees was limited by
their informal agreement to purchase a CD after the gifts were
made. Nor is there any evidence that decedent would not have
made the gifts to any donee who did not agree to invest rather
than spend the gift.
To the contrary, the facts of this case support a finding
that the family was investment orientated, that they discussed
various investment choices, and they agreed that the best choice
was to pool their gifts to purchase a larger CD that paid a
higher rate of interest than the rate they would have received if
they had each bought a smaller CD in the amount of the individual
gifts. The fact that Jack was able to pledge the CD after the
donees purchased it to lower decedent's cost of borrowing in no
way limited the donees' legal ability to demand payment from the
trustees before the CD was purchased.
We hold, therefore, that the $10,000 annual transfers
decedent made to each of the eight Weinstock Trusts in 1985,
1986, 1987, and 1988, were transfers of present interests.
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011