- 71 -
In support of respondent’s contention that at the time of
Ms. Mirowski’s gifts and at the time of her death there was an
implied agreement that Ms. Mirowski retain an interest or a right
described in section 2036(a)(1) with respect to the respective
16-percent interests in MFV that she gave to her daughters’
trusts, respondent relies on essentially the same contentions on
which respondent relies in support of respondent’s argument that
Ms. Mirowski’s transfers to MFV were not bona fide sales for
adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth under
section 2036(a). We have considered and rejected those conten-
tions. For the reasons stated above, we reject respondent’s
contentions here in determining whether at the time of Ms.
Mirowski’s gifts and at the time of her death there was an
implied agreement that she retain an interest or a right de-
scribed in section 2036(a)(1) with respect to the respective 16-
percent interests in MFV that she gave to her daughters’ trusts.
We shall, however, address again what respondent considers
to be of “particular significance” in our determining whether at
the time of Ms. Mirowski’s gifts and at the time of her death
there was an implied agreement that she retain an interest or a
right described in section 2036(a)(1) with respect to the respec-
tive 16-percent interests in MFV that she gave to her daughters’
trusts, namely, during 2002, MFV distributed $36,415,810 to
decedent’s estate which that estate used to pay Federal and State
Page: Previous 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008