- 74 -
stated:
A “good faith” transfer to a family limited partnership
must provide the transferor some potential for benefit
other than the potential estate tax advantages that
might result from holding assets in the partnership
form. Even when all the “i’s are dotted and t’s are
crossed,” a transaction motivated solely by tax
planning and with “no business or corporate purpose ...
is nothing more than a contrivance.” Gregory v.
Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 469 (1935). * * *
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the court to which
an appeal of this case would most likely lie, also has regularly
used a business purpose/economic substance test in Federal tax
matters, e.g., IES Indus., Inc. v. United States, 253 F.3d 350
(8th Cir. 2001); Bergman v. United States, 174 F.3d 928 (8th Cir.
1999), including matters dealing with estate and gift taxes,
e.g., Estate of Schuler v. Commissioner, 282 F.3d 575 (8th Cir.
2002), affg. T.C. Memo. 2000-392; Sather v. Commissioner, 251
F.3d 1168 (8th Cir. 2001), affg. in part and revg. in part on the
applicability of accuracy-related penalties T.C. Memo. 1999-309.
Second, the words “legitimate” and “significant” are
ambiguous and subject to various interpretations. For example,
as I read the meaning of the adjective “legitimate” in
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 665 (10th ed. 1999), I am
unsure which of those meanings the majority intends to give to
that word. The only possible meanings are: “2 : being exactly
as purposed: neither spurious nor false”; “3 a : accordant with
law or with established legal forms and requirements”; and “4 :
Page: Previous 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011