-32-
We find petitioner’s argument unavailing. We find no
credible evidence in the record to establish that someone other
than decedent was entitled to use the residence without
decedent’s consent. The record contains no agreement (with the
exception of the lease agreements) that governs the use of the
residence, and the lease agreements contain no provision
permitting any individual to use any part of the residence in
derogation of decedent’s wishes. Although we find that
individuals other than decedent visited and stayed at the
residence after the transfer, most of these individuals also
visited and stayed with decedent before the transfer. As was
true in both cases, the individuals who visited and stayed with
decedent were obviously there with decedent’s consent, express or
tacit. In fact, although we find that legal title to the
residence changed on account of the transfer, we find no
substantial change in the way that decedent possessed and enjoyed
the residence.
We also note inconsistencies between petitioner’s claim of
decedent’s shared usage and the manner in which Funny Hats and
decedent’s estate reported the rental for Federal tax purposes.
On its partnership returns, Funny Hats reported its rental of the
residence to decedent as that of the entire residence in that
Funny Hats deducted 100 percent of its related expenses and
claimed depreciation on the entire house. The estate tax return
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