- 15 -
Moreover, contrary to the estate’s intimations, payment of
occupancy expenses such as utilities, taxes, and insurance has
not been considered a substitute for rent but rather has been
seen to weigh in favor of finding a retained interest. Guynn v.
United States, supra at 1150; Estate of Rapelje v. Commissioner,
supra at 88; Estate of Kerdolff v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 643, 649
(1972). In sum, courts have been unwilling to decide that no
interest was retained within the meaning of section 2036(a)(1)
where objective evidence has shown that the decedent’s
relationship in fact to the property, beyond the transfer of bare
legal title, remained largely unchanged. Guynn v. United States,
supra at 1150; Estate of Reichardt v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at
152; Estate of Rapelje v. Commissioner, supra at 88. Such is
clearly true here.
As a corollary to the preceding principle, courts have also
considered significant the lack of efforts on the part of a donee
to sell, lease, use, or otherwise take steps to obtain any
economic return from the property. Estate of Maxwell v.
Commissioner, 3 F.3d at 594; Guynn v. United States, supra at
1150; Estate of Rapelje v. Commissioner, supra at 88.
Additionally, the practical unlikelihood of family members’
ousting an elderly relative has been acknowledged. See Guynn v.
United States, supra at 1150; Estate of Honigman v. Commissioner,
supra at 1083; Estate of Kerdolff v. Commissioner, supra at 650.
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