- 27 -
references contractual rights in a bond, note, or insurance
policy that do not result in a future interest characterization.
Hence, while petitioners seem to acknowledge that the Operating
Agreement in large part defines the nature of the property
received by the donees, they also apparently would have us ignore
any provisions of the Agreement which limited the ability of the
donees to presently recognize economic value as akin to the
contractual rights mentioned in the regulation.
However, petitioners’ reliance on section 25.2503-3(a), Gift
Tax Regs., is misplaced. This Court has previously taken a much
narrower view of the cited regulatory language. In Estate of
Vose v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1959-175, vacated and remanded
on another issue 284 F.2d 65 (1st Cir. 1960), we opined that the
regulations were “designed to cover notes and bonds which,
although perhaps not containing all of the attributes of
negotiable instruments, are at least definitely enforceable legal
obligations payable on a day certain and immediately disposable
by the obligee.” LLC units hardly fall within these parameters,
and we observe that the quoted reasoning is consistent with our
focus on requiring some presently reachable economic benefit.
Furthermore, petitioners’ attempts to find in these
regulations support for a distinction between limitations
contractually inherent in the transferred property and
restrictions imposed upon transfer are not well taken. All facts
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