- 7 -
Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 285 (1960), the Supreme Court stated
that a gift arises out of a transfer resulting from a “‘detached
and disinterested generosity,’ * * * ‘out of affection, respect,
admiration, charity or like impulses.’” (Citations omitted.) We
perform a factual analysis in determining whether a transfer is
to be considered a gift, looking primarily at the intent of the
transferor. See id.
Petitioners contend that the $81,000 withdrawn from the
joint account constituted a nontaxable gift. Respondent contends
that the $81,000 constituted compensation for services rendered
by Paul to Doris Kropp.
Doris Kropp did not testify at trial. In support of their
argument, Paul and Lorna testified that during 1994, Paul did not
render any services to Doris Kropp. Respondent presented two
witnesses, Mr. Shea and Mrs. Harte, in support of his position.
Although it is without question that Paul performed services
for his father and his father’s estate from 1981 to 1984 and that
he continued to perform some minor services for Doris Kropp in
the years immediately following her husband’s death, the record
does not support respondent’s contention that Paul continued to
perform services for Doris Kropp as late as 1994, the taxable
year at issue.
Mr. Shea did not have any personal knowledge of the services
Paul may have performed for Doris Kropp in 1994. Mr. Shea
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011