- 14 -
We have held that abandonment cannot occur if the transferor
intends for a particular person to be the transferee.
Strandquist v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1970-84. We stated:
Abandonment must be made by the owner, without being
pressed by any duty, necessity, or utility to himself,
but simply because he no longer desires to possess the
thing; and, further, it must be made without any desire
that any other person shall acquire the same; for if it
were made for a consideration it would be a sale or
barter, and if without consideration, but with
intention that some other person should become
possessor, it would be a gift. * * * [Emphasis added.]
Id. Similarly, the California Supreme Court has stated that
abandonment does not result when the property is delivered and
accepted by a donee. Richardson v. McNulty, 24 Cal. 339, 344
(1864); see also Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456,
465 (1967) (The decisions of the State’s highest court are
conclusive as to that State’s law). That court stated that “If
the gift be complete–-that is to say, if the thing given be
delivered, and accepted by the donee, a transfer is the result,
which transfer as much precludes the idea of abandonment as a
transfer resulting from a sale”. Richardson v. McNulty, supra.
In addition, the court characterized “abandonment” as leaving the
property “free to the occupation of the next comer, whoever he
may be, without any intention to repossess or reclaim it for
himself in any event, and regardless and indifferent as to what
may become of it in the future”. Id. at 345.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011