- 30 -
as an outright and unconditional gift.14 See Sheldon v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1969-170. The facts and circumstances do
not support a finding of donative intent on the part of Mahmoud.
See In re Marriage of Jacobs, 180 Cal. Rptr. 234 (Ct. App.
1982)(without donative intent, no gift has been made). Gabriel’s
own testimony indicates that the household account was established
to pay expenses of the Mahmoud Daya family and that Laila was
given signatory authority over the account so that she could pay
household expenses. Gabriel had a separate checking account to
cover his personal expenditures. In fact, all of the mortgage
payments on the Foster City residence in 1995 were made from the
household account, as were most of the payments on the home equity
line of credit and half of the property taxes due for the year.
By depositing the checks from Fuad in the household checking
account, Mahmoud pooled the $17,500 with Gabriel, Morhaf, and
Fuad’s funds so that Laila would have funds at her disposal to
cover household expenses. In our view the household account was a
“common family fund”, and the contributing members should each be
credited with having pooled the amount of their individual
contributions. See De La Garza v. Commissioner, 46 T.C. at 448-
14
Even if Mahmoud did intend for Gabriel to have unrestricted use
of the $17,500, it could constitute reimbursement for any funds
expended by Gabriel on behalf of Mahmoud. See Jewell v.
Commissioner, 69 T.C. 791, 801-802 (1978).
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011