- 22 -
opinions directs a like result here. Fundamentally, the
preponderance of the evidence shows that decedent as a practical
matter retained the same relationship to his assets that he had
before formation of SFLP and Stranco.
Circumstances that have been found probative of an
implicitly retained interest under section 2036(a)(1) include
transfer of the majority of the decedent’s assets, continued
occupation of transferred property, commingling of personal and
entity assets, disproportionate distributions, use of entity
funds for personal expenses, and testamentary characteristics of
the arrangement. Guynn v. United States, 437 F.2d at 1150;
Estate of Reichardt v. Commissioner, supra at 152-154; Estate of
Thompson v. Commissioner, supra; Estate of Harper v.
Commissioner, supra; Estate of Trotter v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2001-250; Estate of Schauerhamer v. Commissioner, supra.
At the outset, we acknowledge that, in contrast to certain
of the prior cases, the participants involved in the SFLP/Stranco
arrangement generally proceeded such that “the proverbial ‘i’s
were dotted’ and ‘t’s were crossed’.” Strangi I at 486. Steps
were taken to abide by the formal terms of the structure created.
Such measures may give SFLP and Stranco sufficient substance to
be recognized as legal entities in the context of valuation,
which requires assumption of a hypothetical buyer and seller.
They do not preclude implicit retention by decedent of economic
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011