- 18 -
respect to that residence. None of decedent’s children attempted
to sell his or her purported interest in decedent’s residence
before decedent died.13
This Court and other courts have found that facts such as
those which we have found in the instant case surrounding the
transfer of property by a decedent demonstrate that the decedent
retained possession and enjoyment of the property transferred
within the meaning of section 2036(a)(1). See, e.g., Estate of
Maxwell v. Commissioner, supra at 594; Guynn v. United States,
supra; Estate of Rapelje v. Commissioner, supra at 88; Estate of
Honigman v. Commissioner, supra at 1083; Estate of Kerdolff v.
Commissioner, 57 T.C. 643, 649 (1972).
The estate’s reliance on Estate of Barlow v. Commissioner,
supra, is misplaced. In Estate of Barlow, the decedent involved
there and his wife gratuitously transferred a farm to their
children and, under a contemporaneously executed lease, retained
the possession and enjoyment of that farm in return for the
payment by them of a “fair, customary rental”. Id. at 667, 671.
In the instant case, the November 5, 1997 agreement was not a
lease agreement, and decedent did not agree under that agreement
13After decedent died, decedent’s children sold that resi-
dence.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011