Violet A. Reynolds - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         

          "detached and disinterested generosity, * * * affection, respect,           
          admiration, charity, or the like" required by Commissioner v.               
          Duberstein, supra at 285.7  Given the fact that petitioner and              
          Mr. Kent for a long period of time lived as husband and wife in             
          most regards, but for the obvious fact that they were not legally           
          married, we find it hard to believe that their relationship was             
          actually akin to a business arrangement.8                                   
               Our conclusion herein that the property received by                    
          petitioner from Mr. Kent was by way of a gift, rather than as               
          compensation for her services, is consistent with prior decisions           
          of this Court.  First, in Starks v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                
          1966-134, the taxpayer, a young unmarried, nonworking woman was             
          involved with a much older man.  The man, in return for the                 
          woman's companionship, gave her money to buy a house and to spend           
          on her living expenses.  He also gave her an automobile, jewelry,           

               7 In reaching this conclusion, we bear in mind the                     
          allegations set forth in petitioner's Declaration.  We do not,              
          however, accept all these allegations as true.                              
               8 We are mindful that all property acquired during the                 
          relationship was placed in the name of Mr. Kent or that of a                
          corporation that he controlled.  We do not find this fact to                
          negate the presence of a gift under the facts herein.  Federal              
          law answers the question of whether a gift has occurred for                 
          Federal income tax purposes, Commissioner v. Duberstein,                    
          363 U.S. 278, 286 (1960), and we believe that Mr.                           
          Kent's requested judgment and the settlement agreement speak                
          loudly to the effect that he gave petitioner interests in                   
          property under the test set forth in Duberstein.  To the extent             
          that State law is relevant to this inquiry, applicable State                
          (California) law does provide that a nonmarital partner may have            
          an equitable interest in property titled solely in the other                
          partner's name.  See Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal.3d 660, 684 n.24,             
          557 P.2d 106 (1976), and the cases cited therein at 669-670.                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011