Estate of Wayne C. Bongard, Deceased, James A. Bernards, Personal Representative - Page 112

                                        - 95 -                                        
          retained for his life the enjoyment of the WCB Holdings class B             
          membership units that he transferred to BFLP within the meaning             
          of section 2036(a)(1).7                                                     
               I have serious disagreements with the majority opinion’s               
          conclusions that decedent had the ability to cause Empak to                 
          redeem the Empak stock owned by WCB Holdings and to cause WCB               
          Holdings to redeem the WCB Holdings class B membership units                
          owned by BFLP.  I shall discuss those disagreements below.                  
               With the foregoing in mind, I shall now address the majority           
          opinion’s holding under section 2036(a)(1) that “an implied                 
          agreement existed that allowed decedent to retain the enjoyment             
          of the property held by BFLP”.  Majority op. p. 59.  In support             
          of that holding, the majority opinion constructs the following              

               7The absence of a nontax reason for the creation of an                 
          entity, standing alone, might permit disregarding that entity for           
          Federal tax purposes under, for example, a sham analysis.                   
          However, the majority opinion does not rely on a sham analysis,             
          or any other analysis, that would result in disregarding BFLP for           
          Federal tax purposes.  See, e.g., secs. 761(a), 7701(a)(2); cf.             
          Moline Props., Inc. v. Commissioner, 319 U.S. 436 (1943).  That             
          is because, according to the majority opinion, “Respondent has              
          not challenged whether BFLP is a partnership that should be                 
          recognized for tax purposes”.  Majority op. p. 52 note 11.  As              
          discussed supra note 5, respondent does not argue that sec.                 
          2036(a)(1) applies to decedent’s transfer to BFLP of his WCB                
          Holdings class B membership units; respondent argues only that              
          sec. 2036(a)(2) applies to that transfer.  Nonetheless, the                 
          majority opinion applies sec. 2036(a)(1) in reaching its holdings           
          with respect to the transfer at issue to BFLP.  In reaching those           
          holdings, not only does the majority opinion rely on a section of           
          the Internal Revenue Code on which respondent does not rely, it             
          constructs a rationale under that section which respondent does             
          not advance and to which the Estate of Wayne C. Bongard (estate)            
          did not have the opportunity to respond.                                    




Page:  Previous  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011