- 39 -
As previously discussed, decedent continued to be the
principal economic beneficiary of the contributed property after
HFLP’s creation. The few minor distributions made to Michael and
Lynn, which tellingly ceased throughout the entire period that
funds were being disbursed for final gifts and estate expenses,
hardly evidence a meaningful economic stake in the assets during
decedent’s life. Michael’s technical control over management and
distributions is likewise of little import. Although there was
testimony that Michael reinvested proceeds of maturing bonds, and
he presumably collected interest and dividends paid on securities
held in HFLP’s name, these activities are more akin to passively
administrating than to actively managing the contributed
portfolio. From the documents in the record, it appears that the
composition of the portfolio changed little prior to decedent’s
death. We also note that a significant percentage of the
portfolio consisted of professionally managed bond funds.
Given the above, we place little weight on averments
concerning change, during decedent’s life, in the partners’
relationships to the contributed property. In addition, we
believe that our conclusions in this regard are corroborated by
the alleged reason advanced at trial and on brief for
establishment of the partnership. The estate contends:
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011