- 22 -
support of that contention.6
Respondent counters the estate’s position as follows:
The bare fact that Floy Christensen’s children
6The estate also argues that, even if it were necessary to
show decedent’s donative intent as a prerequisite to finding that
the transfers of funds withdrawn by the November 1995 checks and
the January 1996 checks constitute nontaxable gifts,
the only evidence bearing upon Floy Christensen’s
intent is the declaration of Stewart Christensen * * *.
In particular, paragraphs 4, 5 and 9 of Stewart
Christensen’s declaration clearly state that Floy
Christensen and her husband embarked upon a lifetime
gifting program, which program Floy Christensen contin-
ued upon the death of her husband. In later years,
this gifting program was carried out by Floy
Christensen’s son and daughter on her behalf, with her
concurrence, and in keeping with the long-established
gifting program.
We are not required to, and we shall not, rely on the
uncorroborated affidavit of Mr. Christensen. There is no reli-
able evidence in the record establishing to our satisfaction
either a lifetime gifting program by decedent and her husband or
decedent’s continuation of that alleged program after the death
of her husband. Although the record does contain a handwritten
summary prepared by Mr. Christensen which summarized certain
checks written on the Seafirst joint account during 1984, 1985,
and 1989 through Jan. 9, 1996, that summary is conclusory, and we
do not find it persuasive.
Assuming arguendo that we were to have found that a lifetime
gifting program had been carried out by decedent and her husband
and by decedent alone after her husband’s death, the record
belies the allegation of Mr. Christensen in his affidavit that
the issuance by him or Ms. Hastie of the November 1995 checks and
the January 1996 checks was done with the concurrence of dece-
dent. We have found that from at least Sept. 30, 1994, to the
date of her death, decedent suffered from progressive dementia
and exhibited severely impaired cognitive skills, including poor
short-term and long-term memory. On the record before us, we
find that the estate has failed to show that decedent possessed
the requisite mental ability to have concurred in the making of
any alleged gifts by the issuance of the November 1995 checks and
the January 1996 checks.
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