-46-
subject of each prior gift. Feldman also testified that placing
the assets in the LRFLP allowed the general partners to invest
with fewer fiduciary restrictions than through the Lillie
Investment Trust. Upon further questioning, however, Feldman
conceded that the general partners’ investments through the LRFLP
were not in fact more liberal than had been made through the
Lillie Investment Trust and that the trust document could easily
have been rewritten to give the cotrustees powers similar to
those set forth in the LRFLP agreement.
Second, as to petitioners’ claim that the LRFLP was formed
to limit decedent’s liability, i.e., to protect her assets from
her creditors, petitioners have not persuaded us that the LRFLP
was likely to provide more meaningful creditor protection than
the Lillie Investment Trust would have provided. As we
understand petitioners’ factual position as to this claim, the
LRFLP was formed so that someone could not sue decedent and
foreclose on her assets for payment of a judgment against her.
From a factual point of view, however, the record is devoid of
persuasive evidence that the LRFLP was formed with any such
intent. Nor do we find that Feldman informed either of
decedent’s children, before they signed the LRFLP agreement, that
the LRFLP was meant to limit the liability of decedent or any
other limited partner. Indeed, Feldman testified that before the
LRFLP was formed, he never discussed with decedent’s daughter or
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011