- 30 -
given to Mr. Greene 3 months earlier. Again, the limited later
gifts of comparatively small monetary amounts likewise belie a
preceding gratuitous transfer of the underlying shares, as does
the quitclaim deed of Mr. Greene’s interest in the Simi Valley
residence.
In addition to the positive inferences which may be drawn
from the numerous instances in which decedent did act to exercise
dominion over activity in the Valdes & Moreno account and the
funds generated by the eConnect sales (i.e., as to all material
transactions prior to her death, making all eConnect buy and sell
calls to the broker, wiring the resultant funds, giving
particular gifts to her children, etc.), negative inferences
arise from the lack of any such activity on the part of
Mr. Greene. The record contains no specific evidence of any
instance in which Mr. Greene exercised any formal authority over
the contents of the joint account. Even his testimony portrays a
role only akin to that of an adviser.
Also highly probative is the contemporaneous tax reporting
by both decedent and Mr. Greene. Positions taken in a tax return
may be treated as admissions and may be disavowed only by cogent
proof that they are incorrect. Waring v. Commissioner, 412 F.2d
800, 801 (3d Cir. 1969), affg. T.C. Memo. 1968-126; Mendes v.
Commissioner, 121 T.C. 308, 312 (2003); Estate of Hall v.
Commissioner, 92 T.C. 312, 337-338 (1989).
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011