- 47 -
about adequate and full consideration but do refer to
enhancement, or lack thereof, of other partners’ interests.
Hence, even if relevant here, we would be unable to conclude that
these rulings resolve the question of whether a proportionate
entity interest, in and of itself, constitutes adequate and full
consideration for contributed assets.
Second, although Estate of Harrison v. Commissioner, supra,
and Church v. United States, supra, do address section 2036,
there exist significant differences between these cases, on the
one hand, and Estate of Reichardt v. Commissioner, supra, and
Estate of Schauerhamer v. Commissioner, supra, on the other,
which distinguish the two groups. In both Estate of Harrison v.
Commissioner, supra, and Church v. United States, supra, the
other partners made contributions at the formation of the entity
which were not de minimis in nature. The partnership entity thus
served as the vehicle for a genuine pooling of interests. The
court in each case then went on to conclude that the partnerships
had been created for a business purpose. Estate of Harrison v.
Commissioner, supra; Church v. United States, supra.
Accordingly, it is not unreasonable to assume that a genuine
pooling for business purposes injects something different into
the adequate and full consideration calculus than does mere,
unilateral value “recycling” as seen in Estate of Reichardt v.
Commissioner, supra, Estate of Schauerhamer v. Commissioner,
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011