- 12 -
taxpayer respected the restrictions placed on the trust’s
operation as set forth in the trust documents; i.e., whether the
taxpayer felt bound by any trust restrictions or the law of
trusts. See, e.g., Markosian v. Commissioner, supra at 1243-
1244; Muhich v. Commissioner, supra. As discussed below, each of
these factors supports a conclusion that Lucky Kirt Trust did not
have any economic substance.
A. Raymond Roemer’s Relationship to Lucky Kirt Trust
There is no indication that Raymond Roemer’s relationship to
the land he transferred to Lucky Kirt Trust before or after the
formation of the trust differed in any material way. Petitioners
did not provide any evidence of any material change in Raymond
Roemer’s relationship to the land after the trust’s formation.
The transfer of land to the trust failed to alter “any cognizable
economic relationship” between Mr. Roemer and the property
transferred. See Markosian v. Commissioner, supra at 1241.
Petitioners did not provide the trust agreement or any evidence
to the contrary. Consequently, it is apparent that Raymond
Roemer retained his same relationship to the property after the
transfer that he had before the transfer.
B. Independence of Lucky Kirt Trust Trustee
Petitioners have failed to establish that the trustee was
actually independent of Lucky Kirt Trust. Mr. Chisum, as the
Prudent Man Trustee, claimed to be the original trustee for the
trust. Then, he claimed that Hall and Strong was the trustee
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011