- 22 -
The absolute and unbridled discretion conferred on the
Castros as trustees is confirmed by language in the CFT’s
declaration of trust, which provided that “A Minute of
Resolutions of THE BOARD of TRUSTEES authorizing what it is they
determine to do or have done shall be evidence that such an act
is within their power.” We have held on numerous occasions that
such unbridled power gives taxpayer-trustees the same control
over the property as they enjoyed before the formation of the
trust. See, e.g., id. at 1241, 1244; Cooper v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1981-369; Palmer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-354.
Our analysis is supported by the inherent implausibility of
petitioners’ position. It defies common sense that petitioner
would grant the exclusive use of his lifetime services to the CFT
for no remuneration and make an anticipatory transfer of any and
all future earnings to the CFT. It defies common sense that the
Castros would transfer practically all of their assets, including
their home, furnishings, and business, to the trusts for
practically nothing in return while retaining no control over the
assets. See Buckmaster v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-236.
The Castros had the power to allocate all trust principal
and income to themselves in derogation of any other
beneficiaries. The record fails to show that anyone other than
petitioner held units of beneficial interest in the trusts during
the years at issue. On these facts, we conclude that petitioners
have failed to prove that any economic interest passed to any
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011