- 98 -
dent’s alternative ground under section 2036(a)(1), respondent
determined in the notice that
the decedent retained until the time of her death the
possession or enjoyment of, or right to the income
from, the assets he [sic] contributed to the * * *
[Five Partnerships] within the meaning of Internal
Revenue Code Section 2036. * * *
OPINION
Respondent has abandoned all of the various alternative
determinations in the respective notices issued to Mr. Stone’s
estate and Ms. Stone’s estate (collectively, the estates) except
section 2036(a)(1).66 According to respondent,
The only issue remaining for decision is whether sec-
tion 2036(a)(1) applies to include the value of the
assets Decedents [Mr. Stone and Ms. Stone] transferred
to the Stone LPs [ES3LP, ES4LP, CRSLP, RSMLP, and
MSFLP], rather than of interests in the partnerships,
in their gross estates.
However, as discussed below, on brief respondent also relies on
section 2044 at the time of Ms. Stone’s death, and section
2036(a)(1) at the time of Mr. Stone’s death, in support of re-
spondent’s position that “the pro rata net asset value of the
66With respect to the alternative economic substance doc-
trine that respondent advanced in the respective notices issued
to Mr. Stone’s estate and Ms. Stone’s estate, respondent stipu-
lated as follows:
Respondent does not contest the validity under
state law of * * * ES3LP * * * ES4LP * * * CRSLP * * *
RSMLP * * * and * * * MSFLP * * *.
Respondent does not contest the economic substance
of ES3LP, ES4LP, CRSLP, RSMLP, and MSFLP.
Page: Previous 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011