- 34 -
Respondent does not contend that decedent had a duty to
maximize her taxable estate by investing her assets and income
wisely. An individual may consume or even squander her property
without making a gift. See Dickman v. Commissioner, 465 U.S.
330, 340 (1984). In addition, respondent recognizes that
decedent's repeated use of the gift tax annual exclusion--which
enabled decedent to give most of her interest in the family farm
land to the children and their spouses, while making only $313 of
taxable gifts--was proper. Respondent correctly argues, however,
that, if decedent did not consume or squander her investment
income but instead transferred the economic benefit of that
income to the children (as respondent alleges), decedent made
gifts of the income to the children. See id.
On brief, petitioner attempts to address respondent's
concerns about the "disappearance" of both the assets decedent
was entitled to receive from Garry's estate and the investment
income generated by those assets. Petitioner asserts that the
approximately $1 million excess of the value of those assets over
the value of decedent's gross estate is amply explained by: (1)
Decedent's gifts of $532,349 in family farm land during 1979-93
(see supra pp. 9-10); (2) an approximately $85,000 decrease in
the value of decedent's interest in certain farm equipment
acquired from Garry’s estate (see supra p. 13); and (3) an
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011