- 33 -
generated thereby. In addition, according to Michael’s own
testimony, the partners were in no hurry to alter this state of
affairs. This speaks volumes concerning how little the partners
understood to have changed in decedent’s relationship to his
assets as a result of the entity’s formation.
Turning to facts regarding distribution of partnership
funds, we find equally compelling indicia of an implied
understanding or agreement that the partnership arrangement would
not curtail decedent’s ability to enjoy the economic benefit of
assets contributed to HFLP. In addition to the deemed
distributions engendered by the commingling discussed above, even
the distributions made by Michael from the partnership checking
account are heavily weighted in favor of decedent. The check
register indicates that during the period extending from
September of 1994 through early November 1995, partnership funds
were distributed for the benefit of Michael and Lynn in the
amounts of $5,800 and $8,700, respectively. These distributions
occurred on November 9, 1994, December 19, 1994, and January 10,
1995. During that same time frame, partnership checks totaling
$231,820, were remitted to the Trust, with the last being written
on October 30, 1995. Only then did distributions to Michael and
Lynn resume with checks drawn on November 15, 1995, in the
amounts of $4,800 and $7,200, respectively. Given this pattern,
we would be hard pressed to conclude other than that the
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011