Estate of Lillie Rosen, Deceased, Ilene Field and Herbert Silver, Co-Personal Representatives - Page 53

                                         -53-                                         
          decedent from continuing to enjoy her transferred assets.  See              
          Estate of Disbrow v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-34.                      
               Petitioners assert that the distributions from the LRFLP to            
          decedent were actually loans that did not constitute enjoyment of           
          the underlying funds.  We disagree.  Petitioners bear the burden            
          of proving this assertion.  See Rule 142(a)(1); Frierdich v.                
          Commissioner, 925 F.2d 180, 182 (7th Cir. 1991), affg. T.C. Memo.           
          1989-103 as amended by T.C. Memo. 1989-393; Roth Steel Tube Co.             
          v. Commissioner, 800 F.2d 625, 630 (6th Cir. 1986), affg. T.C.              
          Memo. 1985-58.  As we understand their factual claim supporting             
          this assertion, neither decedent nor decedent’s children foresaw            
          that decedent would incur the amounts of health expenses that she           
          did after her assets were transferred to the LRFLP.  We consider            
          this claim incredible.  When the LRFLP was formed, decedent was             
          nearing 90 years old and suffering from dementia and Alzheimer’s            
          disease.  The fact that an elderly individual in such a condition           
          could be expected to incur major health expenses in later years             
          cannot seriously be denied.  Nor can it seriously be denied that            
          decedent enjoyed the capital of the LRFLP for the duration of her           
          lifetime and that decedent’s children, as the general partners of           
          the LRFLP, never intended to seek repayment of the “loans” during           
          decedent’s lifetime.                                                        
               Moreover, we disagree with petitioners from a legal point of           
          view.  Debt for Federal tax purposes connotes an existing,                  






Page:  Previous  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011