- 46 -
by Mrs. Klippel was approximately one-half the value of the
services performed by Donald Hendrickson; James O. Hendrickson
performed no material services. Despite these differences,
however, each of the three children received (also according to
petitioner) an equal 16-2/3-percent share of the partnership's
profits and losses. This asserted awarding of equal partnership
shares for vastly unequal work is further evidence that the
family farm partnership, if it existed, was motivated by feelings
of family solidarity, rather than ordinary business
considerations. See Heringer v. Commissioner, 235 F.2d 149, 151
(9th Cir. 1956) (parents' transfer of farm land to corporation
owned by parents and their 11 children held to be gift; Court of
Appeals found it noteworthy that all 11 children received stock
in the corporation, but only 9 of the children were partners in
the operating partnership that actually farmed the land),
vacating and remanding 21 T.C. 607 (1954).
Above all, in interpreting the "ordinary business
transaction" exception to the gift tax, the pertinent inquiry is
whether the transaction is a genuine business transaction, as
distinguished from the marital or family type of transaction.
See Estate of Anderson v. Commissioner, 8 T.C. at 720. In the
case at hand, the alleged partners were a mother and her three
children. The general rule is that intrafamily transactions are
subject to special scrutiny and presumed to be gifts. See
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011