- 34 -
860 (7th Cir. 2001); Buckmaster v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-
236; Hanson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-675, affd. 696 F.2d
1232 (9th Cir. 1983).
As to the first factor, addressing change in relationship to
trust property, the Court as a threshold matter looks to the
economic realities of the arrangement to ascertain the true
grantor, settlor, or creator, notwithstanding mere nominal
designations as such in the trust documents. Zmuda v.
Commissioner, supra at 720-721; Gouveia v. Commissioner, supra;
Buckmaster v. Commissioner, supra. Here, the trust instrument
for HGAMC names Mr. Quay as the creator and a director; however,
he functioned as nothing more than a temporary “straw man” under
the precedent just cited.
Mr. Richardson testified that he had just met Mr. Quay at an
Aegis training convention in May or June of 1996, a few months
before the HGAMC documents were executed, and had no contact with
him after 1997. Mr. Richardson further testified that having an
attorney named as creator and a director of the entity was a
condition imposed by Aegis on the purchase of the trust package.
Any drafting work would also likely have been minimal, given
that, as a mass-marketed trust “package”, the Aegis system
involved distribution to multiple purchasers of similar,
standardized documents. Mr. Quay contributed no assets to HGAMC,
never had signatory authority over any of HGAMC’s accounts,
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011