- 37 -
estate’s observation ignores the existence in United States v.
Byrum, supra, of the independent trustee who alone had the
ability to determine distributions from the disputed trust,
notwithstanding any prior action by corporate owners or
directors. It also ignores the identity of the shareholders in
this case and the dual roles played by Mr. Gulig.
To summarize, review of the documentary evidence discussed
above reveals that decedent here retained rights of a far
different genre from those at issue in United States v. Byrum,
supra. Rather than mere “control”, management, or influence,
there are traceable to decedent through the explicit provisions
of the governing instruments ascertainable and legally
enforceable rights to designate persons who shall enjoy the
transferred property and its income. The estate’s reliance on a
limited partner’s lack under the TRLPA of participation in
control and under the SFLP agreement of management authority is
thus misplaced. The alleged absence of such powers cannot negate
the dispositive rights granted in the instant case. The
SFLP/Stranco arrangement placed decedent in a position to act,
alone or in conjunction with others, through his attorney in
fact, to cause distributions of property previously transferred
to the entities or of income therefrom. Decedent’s powers,
absent sufficient limitation as discussed infra, therefore fall
within the purview of section 2036(a)(2).
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011