- 25 -
inconsistent with those enunciated by the Supreme Court. See
Rassas v. Commissioner, 196 F.2d 611, 613 (7th Cir. 1952)
(distinguishing Kieckhefer v. Commissioner, supra), affg. 17 T.C.
160 (1951). Thus, instead of adopting an approach which would
undermine the purpose and integrity of the section 2503(b)
exclusion, we for the reasons explained above conclude that
petitioners are not by virtue of making outright gifts relieved
of showing that such gifts in actuality involved rights
consistent with the standards for a present interest set forth in
regulations and existing caselaw.
To recapitulate then, the referenced authorities require a
taxpayer claiming an annual exclusion to establish that the
transfer in dispute conferred on the donee an unrestricted and
noncontingent right to the immediate use, possession, or
enjoyment (1) of property or (2) of income from property, both of
which alternatives in turn demand that such immediate use,
possession, or enjoyment be of a nature that substantial economic
benefit is derived therefrom. In other words, petitioners must
prove from all the facts and circumstances that in receiving the
Treeco units, the donees thereby obtained use, possession, or
enjoyment of the units or income from the units within the above-
described meaning of section 2503(b).
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011