- 42 -
position in certain previous administrative rulings. As the
estate repeatedly brings to our attention, the Commissioner has
cited United States v. Byrum, supra, in such rulings for the
principle that fiduciary constraints counsel against inclusion of
family limited partnership assets under section 2036(a)(2). See,
e.g., Priv. Ltr. Rul. 94-15-007 (Apr. 15, 1994); Priv. Ltr. Rul.
93-10-039 (Mar. 12, 1993); Tech. Adv. Mem. 91-31-006 (Aug. 2,
1991). These written determinations are expressly declared by
statute to be without precedential force. Sec. 6110(k)(3).
Thus, any claimed reliance on them is unavailing. In any event,
cursory exposition in limited factual circumstances does not
preclude our analysis of statutory provisions and regulations in
the context of this case.
In sum, the estate’s averment that decedent’s “‘rights’
* * * were severely limited by the fiduciary duties of other
people who (according to Byrum) presumably could be counted on
* * * [to] observe those restraints” rests on a faulty legal
premise and ignores factual realities. First, the Supreme
Court’s opinion in United States v. Byrum, supra, provides no
basis for “presuming” that fiduciary obligations will be enforced
in circumstances divorced from the safeguards of business
operations and meaningful independent interests or oversight.
Second, the facts of this case belie the existence of any genuine
fiduciary impediments to decedent’s rights. We conclude that the
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011