- 97 -
dent’s third alternative ground, and respondent’s gift theory.65
With respect to respondent’s alternative ground under section
2036(a)(1), respondent determined in the notice that
the decedent retained until the time of his death the
possession or enjoyment * * * [of], or right to the
income from, the assets he contributed to the * * *
[Five Partnerships] within the meaning of Internal
Revenue Code Section 2036. * * *
On November 13, 2001, respondent issued a notice to Ms.
Stone’s estate. In that notice, respondent determined to in-
crease (1) by $688,385 the value attributable to Ms. Stone’s
respective partnership interests in ES3LP, ES4LP, CRSLP, RSMLP,
and MSFLP and (2) by $959,463 the value attributable to the
partnership interest in ES3LP held by the AWS Trust, which were
reported in Schedule F of Ms. Stone’s estate tax return. In
support of those determinations, respondent relied on six alter-
native grounds, including the substance over form doctrine, the
economic substance doctrine, and section 2036(a)(1) which was
respondent’s third alternative ground. With respect to respon-
65With respect to respondent’s alternative gift theory,
respondent determined in the notice that
if it is determined that the value of the decedent’s
[Mr. Stone’s] interests is other than that as deter-
mined above, then, for purposes of determining the
amount of adjusted taxable gifts, it is determined that
the decedent made indirect gifts in 1997 of proportion-
ate amounts of the property the decedent transferred to
* * * [ES3LP, ES4LP, CRSLP, MSFLP, and RSMLP] within
the meaning of Internal Revenue Code Sections 2501 and
2511.
Page: Previous 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011