- 37 -
for less than 2 years. Betsy’s correspondence in early 1995 to
Robert shows that the amount decedent retained was insufficient–-
his original holdings had diminished to $31,806, while his expenses
for the prior year totaled $57,202. Betsy informed Robert that
decedent would need “an infusion” of funds to cover the balance of
decedent’s anticipated 1995 expenses. She proposed that the Turner
Partnership and the Thompson Partnership transfer assets of equal
value to their father. In March 1995 the Thompson Partnership
distributed $12,500 to decedent.
We are not persuaded otherwise by the insistence of decedent’s
estate that decedent always asked Betsy and Robert, in their
respective capacity as officers of the corporate general partners
of their partnerships, for the cash decedent needed to provide
Christmas gifts.11 The fact that decedent requested those sums does
not vitiate the existence of an understanding that he would receive
them.
Here, decedent’s outright transfer of the vast bulk of his
assets to the partnerships would have deprived him of the assets
11 Further, sec. 2036(a) applies when the decedent has “the
right, either alone or in conjunction with any person, to designate
the persons who shall possess or enjoy the property or the income
therefrom.” Sec. 2036(a)(2). (Emphasis added.) The parties have
limited their arguments to the application of sec. 2036(a)(1).
Since we find that decedent retained enjoyment of the property
within the meaning of sec. 2036(a)(1), we leave to another day the
application of sec. 2036(a)(2) to family limited partnerships such
as those existing in this case.
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011