- 18 -
United States, 437 F.2d 1148, 1150 (4th Cir. 1971). In
determining whether an implied agreement existed, “all facts and
circumstances surrounding the transfer and subsequent use of the
property must be considered.” Estate of Rapelje v. Commissioner,
73 T.C. 82, 86 (1979); sec. 20.2036-1(a), Estate Tax Regs.
Decedent gave her children, collectively, a 24-percent
interest in parcel 3. Parcel 3 consisted of just over 10 acres
and had two houses, two large barns, a small barn, a granary, a
farm shop, cattle scales and corrals, two garages, and a small
orchard. Pursuant to its leases of decedent's properties,
Coastal Ranches stored hay in the barns, used the corrals and
farm shop, and kept vehicles in a garage and one of the big
barns. Decedent occupied the larger house, although Dean kept
his desk and bookkeeping papers in one of the bedrooms and used
it as an office. Another bedroom was used primarily by Marian
when she visited from Montana. Coastal Ranches used an office in
the main house. Dean resided in the smaller house on the
homestead property. Other than the main house, decedent's
personal use of parcel 3 was limited to the garden and small
orchard next to the main house.
Decedent’s limited personal use of the property does not
prove the absence of an implied agreement. In fact, the record
is silent as to whether decedent could designate who might enjoy
the property. See sec. 2036(a)(2); see also United States v.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011