- 21 -
trial, the Haneys agreed that they could not take the funds of
AMC Trust to Las Vegas, Nevada, and gamble them away and asserted
that they could not liquidate the assets of AMC Trust and
distribute the money to the trustees. In their posttrial opening
brief, petitioners argue: “The trustees, in essence, are
required to exercise prudent business judgment, to the benefit of
the trust organization.” Petitioners again proceed to a circular
argument that “these limitations, despite not being excessive or
burdensome, are substantial. They do constrain the discretion of
the trustees, and that fact is reflected in the behavior of the
trustees in this case”. The Haneys’ subjective beliefs as to any
prudent limitations and their behavior do not establish any
restrictions. The objective fact is that none of the Haney
family members were restricted by any provision in the trust
agreements, and they controlled all decisions concerning the
trust property. Neither in the documents nor in their conduct is
there any evidence that they were bound by any meaningful
restrictions imposed by the trusts or by the law of trusts. See
Markosian v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. at 1244; Sparkman v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-136; Edwards v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2005-52; Gouveia v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-256;
Castro v. Commissioner, supra.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011