- 362 -
trust instrument where the named grantor made only nominal
contributions, another person funds the trust and the named
beneficiaries reflect the true grantor's (the person who funds
the trust) desires as to lifetime and testamentary dispositions
of their property. In such case, the nominal contributions of
the named grantor are disregarded, and the person who funded the
trust is treated as the true grantor. Bixby v. Commissioner,
supra; Smith v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 263, 290 (1971).
Kanter failed to establish that he did not fund BRT. Other
than the BRT agreement, which recites that Bea Ritch, Kanter's
mother, contributed $100 to each of the 25 trusts, Kanter
introduced no evidence (such as canceled checks, balance sheets,
or other books and records of BRT) to substantiate that Ritch
actually contributed to BRT the amounts recited in the agreement
or that she made any other contributions to BRT. Despite the
fact that respondent subpoenaed both Weisgal, the named trustee
of BRT, and Kanter for the books and records of BRT, with the
exception of tax returns and certain records related to BRT's
interest in Cablevision, the books and records of BRT were not
produced. The inference we draw from this is that if the records
had been produced and introduced into evidence, they would have
revealed evidence unfavorable to Kanter; namely, that he made
substantial contributions directly or indirectly to BRT.
Page: Previous 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011