- 20 -
unanswered questions. If, as respondent contends, Walter and
Betty never parted with their interests in their 3,296 acres, how
do we account for the fact that the QTIP trust held undivided
interests in this acreage?–-an undisputed fact upon which
respondent’s determinations are in significant part predicated.
Moreover, if Mr. Forbes’ 2,058 acres were never transferred to
the limited partnership, it would appear from all the evidence
that this acreage passed to the QTIP trust as part of Mr. Forbes’
sole proprietorship and would have been sold by the QTIP trustee
to the general partnership as part of the August 1, 1986, sale of
all the sole proprietorship assets–-a sale that respondent now
concedes was for full and adequate consideration.9
In sum, respondent’s sham argument comes too late and proves
too much, suggesting that at decedent’s death, the QTIP trust
held no interest in the subject property–-a position that even
petitioner has not advanced.
9 On brief, respondent suggests for the first time that the
QTIP trustee’s Aug. 1, 1986, sale of the sole proprietorship
assets excluded the sole proprietorship’s interests in growing
timber and pecan orchards on the Forbes land. This position
appears inconsistent with respondent’s position in his notice of
deficiency that the Aug. 1, 1986, sale was a bargain sale from
the QTIP trustee to Walter and Betty of timber worth $3,887,000,
farm improvements worth $450,000, and farm equipment worth
$145,550, and that decedent’s gross estate should be increased to
reflect a cause of action against the QTIP trustee for a bargain
sale of assets. As previously noted, respondent has now conceded
that the sale was not a bargain sale and that decedent’s gross
estate includes no right of action against the QTIP trustee.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011