- 14 -
condominium after the transfer of title to the exclusion of the
donees or anyone else whose status stemmed from a superior legal
right to the property.
The further circumstance that a donor’s occupancy occurred
without payment of rent to the donee has also been repeatedly
highlighted. Guynn v. United States, supra at 1150; Estate of
Rapelje v. Commissioner, supra at 88; Estate of Honigman v.
Commissioner, 66 T.C. at 1081. As this Court has opined,
“continued rent-free, exclusive occupancy of * * * [the
residence] for life constitutes a substantial present economic
benefit akin to his renting * * * [the property] to a third party
and keeping the rent therefrom.” Estate of Baggett v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-362; see also Estate of Linderme v.
Commissioner, supra at 309. Again, such an analogy is present in
this case as well. We also note in this connection that the
estate’s focus on an ability to sell or borrow against the
property as a principal economic benefit finds no support in the
reported decisions. Since the decedent in nearly every case has
transferred legal title, a consequent legal disability from
transacting based on the property must be assumed. Yet the
courts have not mentioned this deficiency and thus have
apparently deemed it without moment in the face of rent-free
occupancy.
Page: 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