- 8 -
Retained enjoyment may exist where there is an express or
implied understanding at the time of the transfer that the
transferror will retain the economic benefits of the property.
Guynn v. United States, 437 F.2d 1148, 1150 (4th Cir. 1971);
Estate of Rapelje v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 82, 86 (1979). The
understanding need not be legally enforceable to trigger section
2036(a)(1). Estate of Rapelje v. Commissioner, supra. The
retention of a property's income stream after the property has
been transferred is "very clear evidence that the decedent did
indeed retain 'possession or enjoyment.'" Estate of Hendry v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. 861, 873 (1974). Whether there was an
implied agreement is a question of fact to be determined with
reference to the facts and circumstances of the transfer and the
subsequent use of the property. Id. at 872.
The facts of this case establish that an implied agreement
existed among the partners. Decedent owned the assets
subsequently transferred to the partnerships and collected the
income these assets generated. On December 31, 1990, decedent
formed the partnerships and contributed some of her business
holdings. The partnership agreements required that each
partnership maintain a bank account, and that all income from the
partnerships be deposited into these accounts. After the
formation of the partnerships, a partnership bank account was
opened in the name of each partnership, and each partnership's
$100 of initial capital was deposited into the account. As the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011