-6-
by former Senator Tom Daschle and South Dakota State government
that brings Indians and non-Indians together.
The problems that gave rise to this case can be traced to
some particularly complex wrinkles that Christiansen agreed to as
part of her estate planning. The first was to reorganize the
Christiansen farming and ranching businesses--which for decades
had been run as sole proprietorships--as two limited
partnerships: MHC Land and Cattle, Ltd., and Christiansen
Investments, Ltd. Christiansen kept a 99 percent limited-
partnership interest in each, with the rest going to Hamilton
Investments, L.L.C. Hamilton Investments also became the general
partner of both MHC Land and Cattle and Christiansen Investments,
and Christiansen’s daughter and son-in-law became its members.
Such family limited partnerships (or FLPs) are fairly common,
though often challenged, estate-planning devices and the
structure Christiansen chose is not new to this Court. See
Estate of Strangi v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 478, 484 (2000),
revd. on other grounds 293 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2002).
In January 2000, Christiansen executed her last will and
testament, which named Hamilton personal representative.4 This
is where the second wrinkle showed: Instead of simply dividing
4 We note that Christiansen's estate planners therefore did
not have the opportunity to review and take account of Walshire
v. United States, 288 F.3d 342 (8th Cir. 2002), upholding the
validity of the regulation that is key to this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008