- 4 -
On December 22, 2004, respondent issued separate statutory
notices of deficiency relating to the estate and gift tax
returns. On March 22, 2005, Mr. Stewart, while residing in New
York, New York, timely filed separate petitions on behalf of the
estate relating to the estate and gift tax returns.
OPINION
I. The Transfer to Mr. Stewart Was A Completed Gift
The estate contends that the transfer from decedent to Mr.
Stewart of the 49-percent interest in the 61st Street property
was a completed gift. Pursuant to New York law, a gift is
complete only if donative intent, delivery, and acceptance are
established. Gruen v. Gruen, 496 N.E.2d 869, 872 (N.Y. 1986).
The parties agree that decedent intended to transfer the
property and Mr. Stewart accepted the property. Respondent,
however, contends that there was not a valid delivery of the gift
until April 4, 2001 (i.e., the date the deed was recorded). We
disagree. Pursuant to New York law, the recording of a deed is
irrelevant in determining whether there is a completed gift.
N.Y. Real Prop. Law sec. 244 (McKinney 2006); see Whalen v.
Harvey, 653 N.Y.S.2d 159 (App. Div. 1997). The estate has
established that decedent intended to, and did indeed, relinquish
dominion and control of a 49-percent interest in the 61st Street
property on May 9, 2000. See Gruen v. Gruen, supra at 872.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011