- 31 -
On her original 2000 income tax return, decedent reported
selling all 257,500 shares. She further did not file a gift tax
return for 2000. Consistent with his mother’s treatment,
Mr. Greene did not report any sale of shares on his 2000 return.
The change in position to that reflected in decedent’s amended
return transpired only after her death, at a time when she could
no longer speak to her intentions regarding the eConnect stock
and the Valdes & Moreno account. Decedent’s own representations
on a return she reviewed and signed are decidedly more persuasive
than recharacterizations by others nearly 3 years later, not to
mention after an IRS assertion of additional tax due.
Given the entire record in this case, the Court therefore
concludes that the evidence is sufficient to rebut any
presumption, arising due to a parent-child relationship, that a
gift was intended. Hence, the circumstances cited by the estate,
whether viewed individually or as a collective whole, fail to
afford clear and convincing evidence of an intent to make a gift
to Mr. Greene upon decedent’s establishment and funding of the
disputed joint account, as mandated by TPC 438(a). Consideration
of the remaining elements of a gift, i.e., delivery and
acceptance, is unnecessary. The general rule of TPC 438(a) thus
applies to accord ownership of the eConnect stock in proportion
to the respective contributions of the parties to the joint
account. The result is that decedent owned all the shares at the
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