- 17 -
v. Hutchings, supra at 398; Chanin v. United States, supra at
975; Blasdel v. Commissioner, supra at 1022. Furthermore, it has
become well settled that to qualify as a present interest, such a
gift must confer on the donee not just vested rights but a
substantial present economic benefit by reason of use,
possession, or enjoyment of either the property itself or income
from the property. Fondren v. Commissioner, supra at 20-21;
Estate of Holland v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-302.
The cases have also established through oft-repeated
directives that where the use, possession, or enjoyment is
postponed to the happening of a contingent or uncertain future
event, such as where distributions of property or income will
occur only at the discretion of a trustee or upon joint action of
entity interest holders, or where there is otherwise no showing
from facts and circumstances of a steady flow of funds from the
trust or entity, the gift will fail to qualify for the section
2503(b) exclusion. Commissioner v. Disston, supra at 449;
Ryerson v. United States, supra at 406-408; United States v.
Pelzer, supra at 403-404; Chanin v. United States, supra at 976;
Calder v. Commissioner, supra at 727-730.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011