Estate of Charles E. Reichardt - Page 19




                                       - 19 -                                         
               Petitioner contends that decedent received full and adequate           
          consideration because he received partnership interests, family             
          disputes were settled, and his children became involved in family           
          assets.  We disagree.  Decedent’s children gave nothing to                  
          decedent or the partnership when he transferred property to the             
          trust and the partnership, and they did not involve themselves in           
          the partnership.                                                            
               Petitioner contends that decedent’s children gave                      
          consideration to the partnership in the form of their remainder             
          interests.  We disagree for reasons stated in paragraph B-4,                
          below.                                                                      
               Petitioner contends that decedent sold the transferred                 
          property to the partnership in exchange for partnership interests           
          as consideration.  We disagree.  Petitioner did not sell the                
          transferred property to the partnership.  See Wheeler v. United             
          States, supra.                                                              
               3.   Comparison of This Case to Schauerhamer v. Commissioner           
               Petitioner contends that this case is distinguishable from             
          Schauerhamer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-242.  We held in              
          Schauerhamer that property transferred to three family limited              
          partnerships was included in the transferor’s estate under                  
          section 2036(a).  This case is similar to Schauerhamer in that,             
          in both cases, the decedents and their children had implied                 
          agreements for the decedents to use property that they had                  






Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011