- 29 -                                        
          intended to protect.  Mr. Gerson did not structure his                      
          irrevocable trust in a manner that tied the hands of his heirs,             
          nor was decedent required to make the disputed generation-                  
          skipping transfers.  To the contrary, Mr. Gerson gave the                   
          decedent the flexibility to transfer trust property to anyone of            
          her choosing.  Decedent, who was aware or should have been aware            
          of the regulation in dispute, nevertheless exercised her general            
          power of appointment to effect a generation-skipping transfer.              
               Considering all the factors discussed above, we hold section           
          26.2601-1(b)(1)(i), GST Tax Regs., is a reasonable and valid                
          interpretation of the plain language of TRA 1986 section                    
          1433(b)(2)(A).  The regulation harmonizes with the plain language           
          of the statute, its origin, and its purpose.  Natl. Muffler                 
          Dealers Association v. United States, 440 U.S. at 477.                      
          Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s determination that                     
          decedent’s transfer to her grandchildren was subject to GST tax.            
               To reflect the foregoing,                                              
                                                  Decision will be                    
                                             entered for respondent.                  
               Reviewed by the Court.                                                 
               COHEN, SWIFT, HALPERN, THORNTON, GOEKE, and KROUPA,                    
          JJ., agree with this majority opinion.                                      
               CHIECHI, J., concurs in result only.                                   
               FOLEY, J., did not participate in the consideration of this            
          opinion.                                                                    
Page:  Previous   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   NextLast modified: May 25, 2011