- 102 -
1993 transfers in issue, Dave True had a history of back problems
and a chronic pulmonary insufficiency that required him to be on
oxygen full time.
Courts have found that a decedent’s ill health at the time
he entered into a restrictive agreement indicated that he had
testamentary purposes for doing so. See, e.g., St. Louis County
Bank v. United States, 674 F. 2d at 1210; Lauder I; Estate of
Slocum v. United States, 256 F. Supp. at 755. Therefore, Dave
True’s good health in 1971 and 1973 does not lead to any
inference of testamentary motive for his entry into those
agreements. The subsequent decline in Dave True’s health has no
direct bearing on the likelihood of testamentary purpose when the
agreements were originally entered into.
b. No Negotiation of Buy-Sell Agreement Terms
Petitioners have provided little evidence to show that the
parties negotiated the terms of the buy-sell agreements.
Although the True children in their testimony consistently
characterized communications with their father regarding the buy-
sell agreements as discussions, rather than as negotiations,
there is no evidence that any changes were made to the buy-sell
agreements as a result of those discussions. The True children
did not receive independent legal or accounting advice when they
entered into the agreements, nor did they know who drafted them.
Further, certain facts suggest that the buy-sell agreement terms
were determined unilaterally by Dave True, based on his strong
Page: Previous 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011