-30-
and bounty. While petitioner places great weight on the fact
that Funny Hats could have theoretically evicted decedent from
the residence at the end of a year by not renewing her lease for
the next year, we do not. As stated above, lifetime enjoyment
and possession may be retained by implied agreement even though
not legally enforceable. In addition, from a factual point of
view, the partners of Funny Hats were all members of decedent’s
immediate family, and the record gives us no reason to find that
they would have evicted decedent from the residence. Such is
especially so given our finding that many of the children
traveled from afar to visit decedent both before and after the
transfer. We also add that decedent during her leasehold
retained much wealth in her name and that the children were the
equal beneficiaries of that wealth.
Fifth, decedent transferred the residence to Funny Hats on
the advice of counsel to minimize the tax on her estate.
Decedent appears to have understood that transferring the
residence to Funny Hats and executing the lease agreements with
Funny Hats was merely a mechanism for removing the residence from
her gross estate while allowing her to retain beneficial
ownership of the residence. As the beneficial owner of the
residence, but not as a partner of Funny Hats, decedent
constantly wrote checks to Funny Hats and personally cashed those
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011