Charles T. McCord, Jr. and Mary S. McCord, Donors - Page 12

                                       - 101 -                                        
          redemption, the majority seek to restrict petitioners’ charitable           
          deduction to the $435,019 interest (i.e., 3.62376573 percent) CFT           
          retained pursuant to the confirmation agreement.  In essence, the           
          reasoning set forth by the majority borrows from both the                   
          integrated transaction and violation of public policy doctrines.            
          The majority’s disregard of the transfer of property interests              
          pursuant to the assignment agreement, and focus on the allocation           
          of interests pursuant to the confirmation agreement, implicates             
          the integrated transaction doctrine.  Similarly, the majority’s             
          refusal to adhere to the explicit terms of the assignment                   
          agreement implicates the violation of public policy doctrine.               
          II. Respondent Did Not Establish Applicability of the Substance             
               Over Form Doctrine                                                     


               Respondent contended that formation of the limited                     
          partnership, assignment of partnership interests, confirmation of           
          the assignment, and redemption of the charities’ partnership                
          interests were all part of an integrated transaction where                  
          petitioners intended to transfer all of their assets to their               
          sons and the trusts.  Respondent simply failed to meet his                  
          burden.                                                                     
               Courts have employed the substance over form doctrine where            
          a taxpayer, intending to avoid the gift tax, transfers property             
          to an intermediary who then transfers such property to the                  
          intended beneficiary.7  In some instances the intermediary was              

               7  The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and other                
                                                             (continued...)           



Page:  Previous  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011