- 8 -
Absent express language in a POA providing otherwise and
particularly in light of Estate of Antone v. Staphos, supra, and
the persuasive analysis contained therein, we believe that the
Supreme Court of Connecticut would conclude that under the Act a
general POA does not include the power to make an irrevocable
transfer of a principal’s property without consideration.
On brief, petitioner alleges that decedent expressly
authorized and intended decedent’s attorneys-in-fact to make
gifts of decedent’s property and that under Estate of Pruitt v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-287, and Estate of Bronston v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-510, the transfers made by
decedent’s attorneys-in-fact should be treated as irrevocable
gifts.
In Estate of Pruitt and Estate of Bronston, we concluded
that Oregon and New Jersey law, respectively, did not necessarily
prohibit attorneys-in-fact from making gifts in appropriate
circumstances, and we held that the POAs in those cases contained
express language broad enough to authorize the attorneys-in-fact
to make irrevocable gifts. In those cases, the taxpayers also
established that the decedents intended for their attorneys-in-
fact to continue with a pattern of gift giving that had been
established by the taxpayer and that the attorneys-in-fact had
not committed fraud, abuse, or self-dealing with respect to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011