- 25 -
any legitimate concern about the liabilities of decedent, nor did
decedent’s transfer of her assets to RLP actually protect the
assets from her creditors in that she or her trust was at all
times an RLP general partner. See id. The estate’s stated claim
to a diversification of assets also is not such a purpose in that
RLP’s ownership and management of the transferred assets was
essentially identical to the 1991 revocable trust’s pretransfer
ownership and management of those assets. We also note that RLP
had no investment strategy or business plan of providing added
diversification of investments; rather, RLP held the securities
transferred by decedent without any substantial change in
investment strategy and did not engage in business transactions
with anyone outside of the family.10 See Estate of Thompson v.
Commissioner, 382 F.3d at 378 (partnership lacked substantial
nontax purpose under similar facts). Given these findings and
conclusions, and our additional findings as to decedent’s age and
health at the time of RLP’s formation, as well as the fact that
only decedent’s cash and marketable securities were contributed
to RLP, we conclude that the formation of RLP was more consistent
10 While the estate discerns a business purpose from the
banking and securities investments of decedent’s predeceased
spouse and his parents, we find that family history to have no
bearing on this case.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008