- 13 - property. The estate thus concludes that decedent “had possession of the Real Estate as a tenant and she paid for the same”, based on her payment of all occupancy costs. We disagree for the reasons explained below. 2. Analysis The totality of the circumstances presently before us requires a conclusion that an implied understanding existed between decedent and her family members that she would retain possession and enjoyment of her condominium within the meaning of section 2036(a)(1). The facts of this case are not such that it can be distinguished in any material way from the substantial body of case law mandating inclusion in the context of continued occupancy of a personal residence. As we shall detail infra, the principal factors relied upon in such opinions are equally in evidence here, and additional indicia unique to decedent’s situation buttress the adverse inference. To begin with, we and other courts have characterized the continued exclusive possession by the donor and the withholding of possession from the donee as particularly significant factors. Guynn v. United States, 437 F.2d at 1150; Estate of Rapelje v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. at 87; Estate of Linderme v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. at 309. Here, too, decedent continued to occupy thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011