- 19 -
annotations in the ledgers that decedent paid Bell for any
services that were not freely and voluntarily given, out of love
and affection, and received in the same spirit. This issue in
this case resembles a similar issue in Pascarelli v.
Commissioner, 55 T.C. 1082 (1971). In Pascarelli, the taxpayer
and a Mr. DeAngelis lived much like decedent and Bell, and we had
to determine whether certain payments by Mr. DeAngelis to the
taxpayer were gifts or compensation for services rendered. We
concluded: “These circumstances led us to find that the
petitioner did not perform services for Mr. DeAngelis for the
purpose of obtaining compensation, but rather with the same
spirit of cooperation that would motivate a wife to strive to
help her husband advance in his business.” Id. at 1091. We
found that payments in question were gifts from Mr. DeAngelis to
the taxpayer because they “proceeded from disinterested and
detached generosity * * * motivated by sentiments of affection,
respect, and admiration”. Id. at 1091. The same is true here.
E. Conclusion
Petitioners have failed to convince us that the contested
Bell gifts were anything other than gifts. Petitioners have
failed to prove that there was any commercial aspect to
decedent’s relationship with Bell. To the contrary, we believe
that their relationship was one of love and affection, each
giving freely and voluntarily to the other without any
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011