- 22 -
The Court thus says that the terms “use, possess or enjoy”
connote the right to substantial present economic benefit. This
phraseology is broad and is in no way limited to the factual
context presented. It defines the root words of the regulatory
standard which no party disputes is a generally applicable and
valid interpretation of section 2503(b). See sec. 25.2503-3,
Gift Tax Regs. We therefore would be hard pressed to construe
“use, possession, or enjoyment” as meaning something different or
less than substantial present economic benefit simply because of
a shift in the factual scenario or form of gift to which the test
is being applied. Accordingly, we are satisfied that section
2503(b), regardless of whether a gift is direct or indirect, is
concerned with and requires meaningful economic, rather than
merely paper, rights.
Furthermore, this idea is buttressed by recognition that in
an earlier case we quoted the very language from Fondren v.
Commissioner, supra, set forth above in a context that involved
outright gifts. In Estate of Holland v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1997-302, we quoted the Fondren text en route to concluding that
outright gifts in the form of $10,000 checks, which had been
properly endorsed and deposited, were gifts of a present
interest.
In a similar vein, previous caselaw from this Court reveals
that the principles established in United States v. Pelzer, supra
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011