- 57 -
determinative in the instant case of whether Ms. Mirowski’s
transfers to MFV were bona fide sales for adequate and full
consideration in money or money’s worth under section 2036(a).
With respect to respondent’s reliance on certain caselaw to
support respondent’s view that the existence of the various
alleged contentions advanced by respondent necessarily estab-
lishes in the instant case the absence of a bona fide sale for an
adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth under
section 2036(a), we find the cases on which respondent relies to
be factually distinguishable from the instant case and respon-
dent’s reliance on them to be misplaced.52
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 also contends that,
because Ms. Mirowski did not at any time contemplate forming and
funding MFV without making respective gifts of 16-percent inter-
ests in MFV to her daughters’ trusts, Ms. Mirowski, “in sub-
stance, * * * received only a 52% MFV interest” in exchange for
Ms. Mirowski’s transfers to MFV of 100 percent of its assets. As
a result, according to respondent, Ms. Mirowski “did not receive
52For example, the Court did not find in any of the cases on
which respondent relies that there was a significant and legiti-
mate nontax reason for the transfer involved to which the Court
held sec. 2036(a) applied.
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008