- 19 -
proceeds of the winning ticket as his or her separate
property, and Mrs. Winkler did not make a gift of any
portion of the winning ticket to her children.
Petitioners also argue that an agreement to divide the
proceeds of a winning lottery ticket should be respected
for tax purposes even in the absence of an enforceable
contract or valid partnership so long as the parties to the
agreement actually perform. Finally, petitioners argue in
the alternative that if the division of the lottery
proceeds is determined to be a gift, the Estate of Emerson
Winkler is entitled to an increased marital deduction
because Mrs. Winkler's purported disclaimer of her
husband's 25-percent interest in the E & E Family
Partnership was ineffective.
In deciding this case, the threshold question that
must be answered is whether there was a family partnership
in existence at the time Mrs. Winkler purchased the winning
ticket. If we determine that a valid partnership existed
at that time, we must also decide whether Mrs. Winkler
purchased the ticket on behalf of the partnership.
Petitioners bear the burden of proving that Mrs. Winkler
purchased the winning Lotto ticket on behalf of a
partnership composed of the members of her immediate
family. Rule 142(a).
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