- 27 -
focus here is on whether there existed an implicit agreement that
decedent would retain control or enjoyment, i.e., economic
benefit, of the assets he transferred to HFLP.
Respondent avers that section 2036’s applicability is
established on these facts, emphasizing in particular actual
conduct with respect to partnership funds. Respondent further
maintains that this case is indistinguishable from the situations
presented in Estate of Reichardt v. Commissioner, supra, and
Estate of Schauerhamer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-242. The
estate, on the other hand, discounts the evidence and cases
relied on by respondent, emphasizing instead the formal terms of
the partnership arrangement and the accounting treatment of
entity assets.
In Estate of Reichardt v. Commissioner, supra at 147-148,
the decedent formed a family limited partnership, the general
partner of which was a revocable trust created on the same date.
The decedent and his two children were named as cotrustees, but
only the decedent performed any meaningful functions as trustee.
Id. at 147, 152. He was the only trustee to sign the articles of
limited partnership, to open brokerage accounts, or to sign
partnership checks. Id. at 152. He transferred his residence
and all of his other property (except for his car, personal
effects, and a small amount of cash in his checking account) to
the partnership and subsequently gave his two children limited
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011