- 18 -
The taxpayer bears the burden of showing that the gift at
issue is other than of a future interest.2 Rule 142(a);
Commissioner v. Disston, supra at 449; Stinson Estate v. United
States, supra at 848.
IV. Contentions of the Parties
Against the foregoing background, we turn to the contentions
of the parties before us. Petitioners contend their transfers of
units in Treeco are properly characterized as present interest
gifts. Petitioners emphasize that they made direct, outright
transfers of the Treeco units, which are personal property
separate and distinct under Indiana law from Treeco’s assets.
Petitioners further maintain that the units had a substantial and
stipulated value; that petitioners’ transfers placed no
restrictions on the donees’ interests in the units; and that the
donees upon transfer acquired all rights in and to the gifted
units, which rights were identical to those petitioners had in
the units they retained. Hence, according to petitioners, their
transfers involved no postponement of rights, powers, or
privileges that would cause the gifts to constitute future
interests.
2 Cf. sec. 7491, which is effective for court proceedings
that arise in connection with examinations commencing after July
22, 1998, and which can operate to place the burden on the
Commissioner in enumerated circumstances. Petitioners here have
not contended, nor is there evidence, that their examinations
commenced after July 22, 1998, or that sec. 7491 applies in these
cases.
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