- 31 -
118, 120 (1938)). Thus, the caselaw does not support a narrow
definition of the term “transfer”, but instead indicates a
section 2036 analysis should begin by determining whether the
decedent made an inter vivos voluntary act of transferring
property. Estate of DiMarco v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 653, 662-
663 (1986). Any such act, including decedent’s transfer of his
Empak shares to WCB Holdings and decedent’s transfer of his WCB
Holdings class B financial and class B governance units, is
included in a broad interpretation of the term “transfer”.
B. The Bona Fide Sale Exception
As previously stated, Congress excepted from section 2036(a)
any transfer made in a “bona fide sale for an adequate and full
consideration” (the bona fide sale exception). Respondent argues
that decedent’s inter vivos transfers to WCB Holdings and BFLP
should not be allowed to deplete the gross estate because
sections 2035(a) and 2036(a) and (b) are applicable. The estate
urges us to respect the transfers, arguing each satisfied the
bona fide sale exception. This exception has frequently been the
grist of judicial interpretation.
In Estate of Harrison v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-8, we
determined that a partnership agreement was not a substitute for
a testamentary disposition since the decedent received “adequate
consideration for his transfer to the partnership.” On June 10,
1975, the decedent was in poor health and executed a power of
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011