-24-
the investment in the assets, a mere asset container. Estate of
Rosen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-115; Estate of Harper v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-121.
We now examine both the estate’s asserted nontax purposes
for forming the Partnership and the objective facts. While
Sigrid admitted at trial that the estate tax advantage of
obtaining a decreased fair market value of Mrs. Erickson’s assets
was certainly a motivating factor, the estate asserts several
possible nontax reasons for forming the Partnership.
First, the estate argues that forming the Partnership
allowed the family to centralize the management of the family
assets and give the management responsibilities to Karen. We
note, however, that Karen already had significant management
responsibilities with respect to family assets before the
Partnership was formed. In fact, Karen had held Mrs. Erickson’s
power of attorney since 1987. It is not clear from the record
what advantage the family members believed they would receive
through another layer of “centralized management” of these
assets.5 Second, the estate argues that the Partnership afforded
greater creditor protection. A creditor who sought funds from
5The estate does not argue, and we do not find, that the
family members decided to form the Partnership to manage Mrs.
Erickson’s assets after her diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease.
Karen had already managed Mrs. Erickson’s financial affairs for
many years before the diagnosis by serving as attorney-in-fact
under a durable power of attorney.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007