- 34 -
distribution policy failed to satisfy members. As a result, the
facts in this case convince us that any economic benefit the
donees may ultimately obtain from their receipt of the Treeco
units is future, not present. In other words, the economic
benefit has been postponed in a manner contrary to the regulatory
and judicial pronouncements establishing the meaning of a present
interest gift for purposes of section 2503(b).
Additionally, we note that the fact the parties have
stipulated a value for the Treeco units does not affect the
foregoing analysis. Although petitioners mention this fact
repeatedly, it has long been established that “the crucial thing
is postponement of enjoyment, not the fact that the beneficiary
is specified and in esse or that the amount of the gift is
definite and certain.” Fondren v. Commissioner, 324 U.S. at 26-
27. Entity interest values can be based, as the facts and
circumstances indicate is the case here, on the worth of
underlying assets and the future income potential they represent,
neither of which may be presently reachable. We therefore hold
that petitioners are not entitled to exclusions under section
2503(b) for their gifts of Treeco units.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decisions will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Last modified: May 25, 2011