-34-
not support a finding that the referenced $4,000 check was
decedent’s payment of rent for 2000. In addition to the fact
that the check was not written by decedent, nor do we find that
it was written by another individual at the direction of
decedent, the check was written 2 days before decedent died and
was not deposited into the account of Funny Hats until 2 days
after decedent died. We are skeptical of the legitimacy of that
check as one payable from decedent’s account.
We hold for respondent.9 We have considered all arguments
by petitioner for a contrary holding and find those arguments not
discussed herein to be without merit. Given respondent’s
concessions,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
9 Petitioner also seeks a contrary holding relying upon
Estate of Barlow v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 666 (1971); Estate of
Roemer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-509; Diehl v. United
States, 21 AFTR 2d 1607, 68-1 USTC par. 12,742 (W.D. Tenn. 1967);
and Stephenson v. United States, 238 F. Supp. 660 (W.D. Va.
1965). Each of those cases is factually distinguishable from the
case at hand mainly in that: (1) Decedent did not pay (nor did
she agree to pay) FRV for her use of the residence after its
transfer to Funny Hats and (2) decedent and the donees had an
understanding and agreement that she would retain possession and
enjoyment of the residence until she died.
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