- 10 -
We agree that the holding in Spaeder is limited to the facts
of that case and that the facts we consider here are
distinguishable. In Spaeder, the deceased had put up the entire
amount of consideration and lived in the residence acquired in
joint tenancy with friends. In addition, the deceased in that
case was older than decedent here, and he was infirm and in need
of care. Decedent here exchanged an interest in Western for:
(1) The right to reside in Primrose, (2) the right to maintain
her dogs at Western, and (3) the services of Mr. McReady in
managing Bradley. Decedent was in good health and self-reliant
at the time of the 1987 agreement. Although she housed her dogs
at Western, she was seeking a more secure place to reside after
the death of her sister, who had lived with decedent for an
extended period.
We recognize that Mrs. McReady, along with her sister, was
the natural object of decedent’s bounty and named as the sole
heir of decedent, and that fact causes us to more closely
scrutinize their transactions. However, it does not
automatically negate their agreements. See Caligiuri v.
Commissioner, 549 F.2d 1155, 1157 (8th Cir. 1977), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1975-319; Perry v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 470, 481 (1989),
affd. 912 F.2d 1466 (5th Cir. 1990).
It is important to note that Mrs. McReady and her sister, as
beneficiaries, each received a distribution of assets worth
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011