- 16 -
Notwithstanding our belief that petitioner did not make
gifts of mineral interests to his wife, we need not rest our
opinion solely on that ground. Petitioner asserts, and we agree,
that Mrs. Grynberg signed assignment forms in blank so that
petitioner could revest himself with title to the mineral
interests. At trial, respondent challenged the existence of such
forms on the grounds that petitioner failed to mention them to a
revenue agent during the audit process. This allegation, which
calls into question petitioner’s credibility, is unfounded.
Petitioner, who appeared as a forthright and sincere witness, did
his best to recall and describe events as they occurred and
candidly acknowledged the occasional failure of memory. We are
convinced that his testimony regarding the existence of blank
assignment forms, as corroborated by three former employees of
JGA, was truthful. Indeed, respondent offered no evidence that
in any way contradicted petitioner’s testimony.
Petitioner’s decision to have Mrs. Grynberg sign assignment
forms in blank is yet another manifestation of his control over
the mineral interests. These forms, which gave petitioner power
to divest his wife of the properties, rendered the transfers
incomplete, for the law is settled that a gift, with power in the
donor to revoke it, is not a gift subject to the gift tax. See
Smith v. Shaughnessy, 318 U.S. 176 (1943); Estate of Sanford v.
Commissioner, 308 U.S. 39 (1939); Burnet v. Guggenheim, 288 U.S.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011