- 13 -
Commissioner, supra at 86-87. Petitioner bears the burden (which
is especially onerous for transactions involving family members)
of proving that an implied agreement or understanding between
decedent and his children did not exist when he transferred the
property at issue to the trust and to the partnership. See
Estate of Skinner v. United States, 316 F.2d 517, 520 (3d Cir.
1963); Estate of Rapelje v. Commissioner, supra at 86; Estate of
Hendry v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 861, 872 (1974).
Petitioner contends that decedent and his children did not
have an implied agreement that decedent could continue to use the
property after he conveyed it to the partnership. Petitioner
contends that the partnership was formed (a) to curtail
decedent’s enjoyment of the property transferred to the limited
partnership, (b) to prevent him from taking imprudent actions
with regard to the property and to settle family disharmony
regarding the assets, and (c) to give the children more control
over the assets.
a. Whether Decedent Curtailed His Enjoyment of the
Transferred Property
Decedent did not curtail his enjoyment of the transferred
property after he formed the partnership. Nothing changed except
legal title. Decedent managed the trust which managed the
partnership. Decedent was the only trustee to sign the articles
of limited partnership, the deeds, the transfer of lien, and any
document which could be executed by one trustee on behalf of the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011