- 16 -
business for profit.” Ala. Code sec. 10-8-2 (1994); see LeFrak
v. Commissioner, supra.
Nor do we agree with petitioner’s contention that his
transfers should be characterized as enhancements of his sons’
existent partnership interests. The gift tax is imposed on the
transfer of property. See sec. 2501. Here the property that
petitioner possessed and transferred was his interests in the
leased land and bank stock. How petitioner’s transfers of the
leased land and bank stock may have enhanced the sons’
partnership interests is immaterial, for the gift tax is imposed
on the value of what the donor transfers, not what the donee
receives. See Robinette v. Helvering, 318 U.S. 184, 186 (1943)
(the gift tax is “measured by the value of the property passing
from the donor”); Stinson Estate v. United States, 214 F.3d 846,
849 (7th Cir. 2000); Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Commissioner,
839 F.2d 1249 (7th Cir. 1988) (for gift and estate tax purposes,
value of stock transferred to trusts was determined without
regard to terms or existence of trust); Goodman v. Commissioner,
156 F.2d 218, 219 (2d Cir. 1946), affg. 4 T.C. 191 (1944); Ward
v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 78, 100-101 (1986); LeFrak v.
Commissioner, supra; sec. 25.2511-2(a), Gift Tax Regs.; cf.
Estate of Bright v. United States, 658 F.2d 999, 1001 (5th Cir.
1981) (for estate tax purposes, “the property to be valued is the
property which is actually transferred, as contrasted with the
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011