- 26 -
income to the daughters. Finally, Mr. Goldman testified as
follows:
Q: Now, in regard to the status quo paragraph, if Mrs.
Abraham’s expenses had increased, say she had some
extraordinary medical expenses that weren’t covered, you
would have continued to pay whatever expenses were necessary
out of the partnership accounts, right?
A: I would have done everything necessary, because I
thought that was my prime appointment, reason for my
appointment to do that, but as you said, it never occurred.
The documentary evidence, including the stipulated decree
of the probate court, and the understanding of decedent’s
children and legal representatives demonstrate that decedent was
entitled to any and all funds generated from the partnerships for
her support first. Only after this could any excess be
distributed in proportion of the partners supposed ownership
interests. Here, it is clear that at the time of the transfers,
decedent explicitly retained the right to the income that the
FLPs generated to the extent necessary to meet her needs.
Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s determination that decedent
retained the enjoyment and use of the FLP interests transferred
within the meaning of section 2036.
Section 2036(a) excepts from inclusion property transferred
pursuant to a “bona fide sale for an adequate and full
consideration in money or money’s worth”.27
27In construing bona fide sale, “the word ‘sale’ means an
exchange resulting from a bargain.” Estate of Harper v.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011