-24-
irrevocably, and without possible reservations,” parted with all
of her title, possession, and enjoyment of the residence.
Commissioner v. Estate of Church, 335 U.S. 632, 645 (1949).
Decedent will have retained such an interest in the residence if
she transferred the residence to Funny Hats with an understanding
or agreement, express or implied, that the possession or
enjoyment of the residence would be for her pecuniary benefit.
See Guynn v. United States, 437 F.2d 1148, 1150 (4th Cir. 1971);
Estate of Rapelje v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 82, 86 (1979); sec.
20.2036-1(b)(2), Estate Tax Regs.; see also United States v.
Byrum, 408 U.S. 125, 146 n.28 (1972) (in the context of section
2036(a)(1), the word “enjoyment” denotes the receipt of a
substantial present economic benefit); Estate of Maxwell v.
Commissioner, 3 F.3d 591, 593 (2d Cir. 1993) (in the context of
section 2036, the terms “possession” and “enjoyment” as applied
to real property denote “‘the lifetime use of the property’”
(quoting United States v. Byrum, supra at 147)), affg. 98 T.C.
594 (1992). Such is so even if the retained interest is not
legally enforceable. See Estate of Abraham v. Commissioner,
supra at 39; Estate of Maxwell v. Commissioner, supra at 593;
Estate of Reichardt v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 144, 151 (2000);
Estate of Rapelje v. Commissioner, supra at 86.
Whether decedent had an understanding or agreement to retain
possession or enjoyment of the residence following its transfer
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011