Estate of Eugene E. Stone, III, Deceased, C. Rivers Stone, E.E. Stone, IV, Mary Stone Fraser & Rosalie Stone Morris, Co-Personal Representatives - Page 15

                                       - 104 -                                        
              tions. * * * The creation of the [Five] Partnerships                    
              did not constitute “value recycling,” and Mr. and Mrs.                  
              Stone received full and adequate consideration for                      
              their transfers to the partnerships.  [Fn. ref. omit-                   
              ted.]                                                                   
              On the record before us, we agree with the estates’ position            
         and reject respondent’s position.  The instant cases are distin-             
         guishable from Estate of Harper v. Commissioner, supra, and other            
         cases factually similar to Estate of Harper71 on which respondent            
         relies, and respondent’s reliance on such cases is misplaced.                
         Unlike the transfers involved in Estate of Harper and those other            
         cases, we have found on the record in the instant cases that the             
         respective transfers of assets by Mr. Stone and Ms. Stone to each            
         of the Five Partnerships, as well as the respective transfers of             
         assets by the other partners to each such partnership,72 were bona           


               71See supra note 70.                                                   
               72All the partners of each of the Five Partnerships trans-             
          ferred to each such partnership respective assets such partners             
          owned.  We reject respondent’s contention that, because certain             
          of the assets that the children respectively transferred to one             
          or more of the Five Partnerships were assets that they received             
          as gifts from Mr. Stone, the children did not make transfers to             
          one or more of such partnerships that should be recognized for              
          purposes of determining the applicability of sec. 2036(a)(1) to             
          such transfers.  Mr. Stone gave certain property to each of the             
          children, which they then transferred to one or more of the Five            
          Partnerships in return for partnership interests.  Mr. Stone                
          reported the gifts that he made to the children in his 1997 gift            
          tax return.  The children owned the assets that he gave them when           
          they respectively transferred such assets to one or more of such            
          partnerships.  In this connection, we note that respondent                  
          abandoned the alternative substance over form doctrine advanced             
          in the respective notices issued to Mr. Stone’s estate and Ms.              
          Stone’s estate.                                                             




Page:  Previous  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011