- 61 -
transferee, at the direction of the transferor, to pay the
transferor's expenses.
We have found that the net aggregate cash needs of the
family farm from 1979 to 1993 did not exceed $239,184. We
believe, however, that even if decedent's investment income had
been used to pay this entire amount, only a portion of the amount
should be considered to be decedent's expenses, for the following
reason.
Petitioner asserts that an individual may consume her own
income as she wishes, without making a taxable gift. Petitioner
also claims that decedent deeply desired to preserve the family
farm. Accordingly, petitioner asserts that decedent, who had
both emotional and ownership interests in the family farm land,
could have spent as much money as she wanted on the farm without
making a taxable gift--even if she received no pecuniary return
on her investment.
As a general principle, petitioner is undoubtedly correct
that an individual is under no duty to invest her property
productively. Indeed, an individual may consume or even squander
her property without making a gift. See Dickman v. Commissioner,
465 U.S. at 340. However, when an individual transfers her
property (or the use of her property) to members of her family
without receiving adequate consideration for it in money or
Page: Previous 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011