- 29 -
note that respondent grants the estate credit for these payments
under section 2043.
The estate also argues that respondent erroneously failed to
give it credit for additional amounts that Ms. Cawley and Ms.
Slater paid. Specifically, in his determination respondent
failed to acknowledge that in 1996 and 1997 Ms. Cawley and Ms.
Slater paid an additional $80,000 and $90,000, respectively, for
which they received additional interests in the FLPs. The
evidence demonstrates that these amounts, unlike the initial
$160,000, were not paid to decedent, but instead to the FLPs
themselves.
The estate fails to cite any authority upon which we may
rely, and we cannot see how these amounts could constitute
consideration if they were not paid to decedent.32 Indeed, the
evidence does show that after decedent’s death, Ms. Cawley
received a $93,078.62 distribution from the DAC FLP, and Ms.
Slater received a $120,869.42 distribution from the DAS FLP.
Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s determination that these
additional amounts that Ms. Slater and Ms. Cawley paid directly
to the FLPs should not reduce the amount included in decedent’s
gross estate under section 2036.
32If the children were buying part of decedent’s interest in
the FLPs, decedent and not the FLPs should have received those
purchase moneys.
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