- 63 -
calendar years in the period at issue produces an amount of
approximately $4,950 per year.
We therefore hold that during 1979-93, decedent gave her
$913,200 in investment income to the children as asserted by
respondent on brief, except that the amount of the gifts asserted
by respondent should be reduced by $4,950 per year15 on account
of moneys spent by Garry's estate on decedent's share of the cost
of operating the family farm.16
We realize that this approach only roughly estimates the
amount of decedent's investment income actually spent on family
farm land owned by decedent during each of the 15 years in issue.
However, the Cohan rule recognizes that the true injustice would
be to take an all-or-nothing approach, because of a failure of
proof.17 It also contemplates that we may bear down, if we so
15 In applying the unused annual gift tax exclusions to
which decedent was entitled (see supra p. 10), this amount should
be divided equally among the three children; i.e., the asserted
gifts to each of the three children should be reduced by $1,650
per year.
16 As discussed above, we have not treated any of the Land
Bank loan payments as decedent's expenses. However, we have
found that the amount of decedent's investment income used to pay
decedent's share of the family farm expenses during 1979-93 was
equal to decedent's full share of the aggregate net cash needs of
the family farm for that period. For this reason, if we had
found that any Land Bank loan proceeds had been used to pay
decedent's share of the farm expenses, we would also have found
that less of decedent's investment income had been so used.
17 See Gerling Intl. Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 640,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011