- 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 thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011