- 18 -
regard are insufficient to show that there is a genuine issue for
trial.11 See Brotman v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. at 142.
Accordingly, we shall grant respondent’s motion for summary
judgment that decedent’s gross estate includes $4,680,284 of gift
taxes paid by or on behalf of decedent with respect to his 1991
and 1992 gifts.
B. Constitutional Arguments
1. Due Process
The estate contends that section 2035(c) violates due
process under the Fifth Amendment, because its enactment created
“a conclusive presumption regarding motive, in contravention of”
Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932). The estate’s argument is
without merit.
Heiner v. Donnan, supra, involved a provision of the Revenue
Act of 1926. The statute provided that a decedent’s gross estate
included the value of any interest in property that the decedent
had transferred, at any time, in contemplation of death.12
11 In a legal memorandum filed with this Court on Mar. 21,
2002, the estate states: “Even if we assume, as respondent would
have us do, that the Refund Suit decided the issue of
‘consideration provided by the donees of the gifts,’ the issue of
consideration to decedent from others than donees has not been
litigated or decided.” The estate has set forth no particular
facts, however, to show that decedent received any consideration
from “others than donees”.
12 Under then-existing law, gifts in contemplation of death
were included in the transferor’s gross estate “to reach
substitutes for testamentary dispositions and thus to prevent the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011