- 34 -
partnership arrangement did little to curtail the access of
decedent or his estate to the economic benefit of the contributed
property.
Similarly significant is the evidence that certain of the
distributions to the Trust were linked to a contemporaneous
expense of decedent personally or of his estate. These amounts,
variously labeled by Michael “additional distribution”, “return
of capital”, or “capital return”, totaled $220,520 and even
included $4,000 to enable decedent to complete a gift 2 days
before he died. This evidence buttresses the inference that
decedent and his estate had ready access to partnership cash when
needed.
On the issue of distributions, the estate repeatedly
intones, in mantralike fashion: “The managing general partner’s
right to make distributions was unlimited and could be made ‘at
such times and in such amounts as are determined in the sole and
absolute discretion of the Managing General Partner.’” Once
again, however, this point begs the question. The more salient
feature is not that Michael did or did not have authority to make
the distributions but that he frequently used his position to
place partnership funds at the Trust’s disposal in response to
personal or estate needs. No other partner was afforded the same
luxury of “additional” distributions or capital returns.
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011