- 38 -
needed for his own support. Thus, the transfers from the
partnerships to decedent can only be explained if decedent had at
least an implied understanding that his children would agree to his
requests for money from the assets he contributed to the
partnerships, and that they would do so for as long as he lived.
While we acknowledge that, as a result of the creation of the
partnerships, prior to decedent’s death some change ensued in the
formal relationship of decedent to the assets he contributed to the
partnerships, we are satisfied that the practical effect of these
changes during decedent’s life was minimal. Decedent continued to
be the principal economic beneficiary of the contributed property
after the partnerships were created. Based on these facts, we
conclude that nothing but legal title changed in the decedent’s
relationship to his assets after he transferred them to the
partnerships. Estate of Reichardt v. Commissioner, supra at
152-153.
Any control over management and distributions by Betsy and
Robert is likewise of little import. Documents in the record show
that the composition of the portfolio changed little prior to
decedent’s death. We place little weight on averments concerning
change, during decedent’s life, in the partners’ relationships to
the contributed property.
In Mahoney v. United States, 831 F.2d 641, 646-647 (6th Cir.
1987) the court explained:
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011