- 54 -
death. If decedent had actually relinquished dominion and
control of the Marital Fund assets to TCO, under the terms of the
agency agreement TCO would have collected all income from the
property, and TCO would have distributed to decedent only such
amounts as GFLP directed. The reality established by the record
is that Ms. Powell, acting on behalf of decedent or her estate,
controlled the receipt and disposition of the income from Marital
Fund assets without having to request any distributions from TCO
or GFLP to pay decedent’s expenses.
Petitioner attempts to explain why the dividends, interest,
and proceeds of the Marital Fund property were deposited into
various bank accounts belonging to or controlled by decedent by
arguing that “other bank account names were used because of the
problems with getting banks to accept checks not made payable to
GFLP”. Petitioner insists, however, that all of decedent’s bank
accounts were treated as GFLP accounts. Petitioner’s explanation
is too facile, and it fails to explain why some dividend and
interest checks were deposited directly into GFLP account No.
7045 while others were not. None of the Marital Fund assets were
registered or titled in the name of GFLP, and none of the
dividend and interest checks were issued in GFLP’s name.46
Petitioner’s explanation also does not explain why $22,415 of the
46Regardless of the payees’ identities, once the checks were
deposited, decedent could have transferred the funds to GFLP.
Decedent did not do so.
Page: Previous 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007