Christine M. Hackl - Page 17




                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011