- 51 -
available if Ms. Mirowski were to make a separate gift of a
portion of her assets to each of her daughters or to each of her
daughters’ trusts; and (3) providing for each of her daughters
and eventually each of her grandchildren on an equal basis.45
In support of respondent’s position that the exception under
section 2036(a) for a bona fide sale for an adequate and full
consideration in money or money’s worth does not apply to Ms.
Mirowski’s transfers to MFV, respondent advances certain other
contentions, including the following: (1) Ms. Mirowski failed to
retain sufficient assets outside of MFV for her anticipated
financial obligations (respondent’s contention (1)); (2) MFV
lacked any valid functioning business operation (respondent’s
contention (2)); (3) Ms. Mirowski delayed forming and funding MFV
until shortly before her death and her health had begun to fail
(respondent’s contention (3)); (4) Ms. Mirowski sat on both sides
of Ms. Mirowski’s transfers to MFV (respondent’s contention (4));
45Ms. Mirowski’s formation of MFV and her lifetime gift of
an equal interest in it to each of her daughters’ trusts enabled
Ms. Mirowski to ensure that her daughters and eventually her
grandchildren would continue to hold respective interests of
equal worth in the bulk of the family’s assets.
Respondent asserts that under Estate of Bongard v. Commis-
sioner, 124 T.C. 95 (2005), facilitation of lifetime giving may
never qualify as a significant nontax reason for forming and
funding a family LLC or a family partnership. We reject respon-
dent’s assertion. In Estate of Bongard, we did not conclude that
an intention to facilitate lifetime giving may never be a signif-
icant nontax factor. Rather, we found on the record presented
there that such an intention was not a significant nontax reason
for forming the partnership involved in that case. Id. at 127.
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008