- 74 -
Mirowski’s daughters), agreed and decided that MFV should not
make distributions to them.68 In making that decision, MFV’s
members had in mind that those members will own collectively 100
percent of MFV, in three equal shares, after decedent’s estate is
closed.
On the record before us, we conclude that the decision by
MFV’s members after Ms. Mirowski died to have MFV distribute
during 2002 over $36 million to decedent’s estate, which the
estate used to pay Federal and State transfer taxes, legal fees,
and other estate obligations, is not determinative in the instant
case of whether 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.
On the record before us, we find that at the time of Ms.
Mirowski’s gifts and at the time of her death there was no
implied agreement or understanding that Ms. Mirowski retain the
possession or the enjoyment of, or the right to the income from,
the respective 16-percent interests in MFV that she gave to her
daughters’ trusts.
68In other words, MFV’s members (i.e., the daughters’
trusts) agreed and decided that during 2002 MFV should not make
pro rata distributions to all of the interest holders of MFV.
Page: Previous 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008