- 21 -
dent.5
In further support of its position that the transfers of
funds represented by the November 1995 checks and the January
1996 checks constitute nontaxable gifts made by decedent, the
estate argues:
Regulation � 25.2511-1(g)(1) makes it abundantly
clear that Floy Christensen did not have to possess
donative intent at the time of the Gift Checks to have
made a gift. Instead, the Regulation applies an objec-
tive facts and circumstances test. The Regulation
eliminates any doubt as to that test in this fact
pattern through an example found in the Regulations,
� 25.2511-1(h)(4), which example deals with a joint
bank account and gifts made from that account.
According to the estate, the example found in sec. 25.2511-
1(h)(4), Gift Tax Regs., “impliedly recognizes” that, regardless
of donative intent on the part of the transferor, checks properly
drawn on a joint account to others constitute gifts. The estate
points to sec. 25.2511-1(c)(1), Gift Tax Regs., in further
5We agree with the estate’s acknowledgment regarding dece-
dent’s power of attorney. Section 11.94.050(1) of the Revised
Code of Washington Annotated (West 1998) (RCWA 11.94.050(1))
provides that an attorney in fact does not have the power, unless
specifically otherwise provided in the power of attorney, to make
any gifts of property owned by the principal. Decedent’s power
of attorney authorizing Mr. Christensen and Ms. Hastie to act as
her attorneys in fact does not specifically provide that those
individuals were authorized to make gifts of property owned by
decedent. We conclude that decedent’s power of attorney did not
authorize Mr. Christensen and Ms. Hastie to make gifts on her
behalf. Where, as here, a power of attorney is silent with
respect to any authority to make gifts of the principal’s prop-
erty, the agent may not read such authority into the instrument.
See RCWA 11.94.050(1).
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011