-31-
Respondent filed his issues memorandum on December 6, 2004.
Eight days later, petitioner in docket No. 7575-04 filed an
issues memorandum that stated:
The reason that the decedent and her children formed
the Lillie Rosen Family Limited Partnership was to have
a family business of making, protecting, enhancing, and
investing in the partnership’s assets. This included
trading, acquiring, disposing or investing in
securities on behalf of the partnership’s partners.
OPINION16
1. Preface
Respondent determined that the assets of decedent
transferred to the LRFLP are includable in her gross estate under
section 2036(a)(1). According to respondent, those assets were
transferred in other than a bona fide sale for full and adequate
consideration, and decedent retained until her death the
possession or enjoyment of, or the right to the income from, the
16 During the trial of these cases, petitioners elicited
testimony from witnesses who included decedent’s children,
decedent’s son-in-law, and Feldman. Each named witness has a
pecuniary interest in the outcome of these cases. Our perception
of Feldman and decedent’s son-in-law while viewing them
testifying at trial, coupled with our review of the record, leads
us to discount much of their testimony as unreliable. Our
perception of decedent’s children while viewing them testifying
at trial, coupled with our review of the record, leads us to
discount the portion of their testimony that is inconsistent with
objective evidence in the record. We do not rely on the
discounted testimony to support petitioners’ positions herein.
See Frierdich v. Commissioner, 925 F.2d 180, 185 (7th Cir. 1991),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1989-103 as amended by T.C. Memo. 1989-393;
Neonatology Associates, P.A. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 43, 84
(2000), affd. 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2002); cf. United States v.
Thompson, 422 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2005).
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011