-51-
enjoyment of her assets that she had had before the assets were
transferred to the LRFLP. We find it understood that decedent
would receive distributions when and as she needed them. “The
existence of an implied agreement is a question of fact that can
be inferred from the circumstances surrounding a transfer of
property and the subsequent use of the transferred property.”
Estate of Bongard v. Commissioner, supra at 129. We find such an
implied understanding or agreement when we view the conduct of
the parties to the LRFLP agreement, as well as that agreement
itself. See Estate of Reichardt v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at
151; Estate of Rapelje v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. at 86.
First, the LRFLP was not a business operated for profit; it
was a testamentary device whose goal was to reduce the estate tax
value of decedent’s assets. Before the transfer of decedent’s
assets to the LRFLP, decedent directly paid her expenses and
fulfilled her plan of gift giving. After the transfer, the LRFLP
used the assets received from decedent to pay indirectly the same
types of expenses and conduct the same gift giving.
Second, decedent’s relationship to her assets did not change
following their transfer to the LRFLP and was not treated
differently by either decedent’s daughter (as decedent’s
attorney-in-fact) or the general partners of the LRFLP. Decedent
transferred substantially all of her assets to the LRFLP, leaving
her few liquid assets on which to live. Where an individual
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011