-38-
decedent had not relinquished complete dominion and control over
the funds before her death, the checks were not completed gifts.
Burnett v. Guggenheim, 288 U.S. at 286 (a gift is not consummate
until put beyond recall); sec. 25.2511-1(g)(1), Gift Tax Regs.
Moreover, there were insufficient funds in decedent's
account to cover the checks when they were written and when she
died. She could not have intended to relinquish control until
the borrowed funds were deposited in her account. See also
Estate of Dillingham v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1569, 1576 (1987)
(checks not cashed until 35 days after delivery to donees,
without explanation of the reason for the delay, casts doubt as
to whether the checks were unconditionally delivered, or whether
decedent had sufficient funds to cover the checks at the time
they were delivered), affd. 903 F.2d 760 (10th Cir. 1990).
Despite our holding that decedent retained control over the
checks, petitioner may still prevail if we agree that payment of
the replacement checks relates back to the delivery of the
original checks.
In Estate of Gagliardi v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 1207 (1987),
we addressed the question of whether the relation-back doctrine
should apply to checks that were not cashed until after the
donor's death. Id. at 1211. Assuming the date of payment of the
checks related back to the date the checks were issued (prior to
the donor's death), the amount of the checks would be excluded
from the donor's Federal gross estate.
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011