- 42 -
cause the value of the property he contributed to the enterprise to
be returned to his estate. See, e.g., Estate of Harrison v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-8; Estate of Michelson v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1978-371. In those cases, there was no
expressed or implied agreement between the partners in the
partnerships that the decedents could continue to use, possess, or
enjoy partnership property, within the meaning of section 2036(a).
In the case before us, however, the transactions were not
motivated by the type of legitimate business concerns that
furnished “adequate consideration” as described in Estate of
Harrison v. Commissioner, supra, and Estate of Michelson v.
Commissioner, supra. Further, we have found that in the case
before us, the partners did, in fact, have an expressed or implied
understanding that decedent could continue to use the assets he
transferred to the partnerships.
A number of factors influence our finding. Initially, we note
that none of the individual partners in either of the partnerships
was involved in the conduct of an active business. Additionally,
it is clear that Robert, Betsy, and George did not actually pool
their assets with those of decedent. To the extent the
partnerships could have generated income resulting from their
separate activities, they arranged matters so that any such income
went to them directly, and not to the partnerships. For example,
in Robert’s case, any income from the sale of the mules went to him
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011