- 76 -
gifts. After those gifts, the daughters’ trusts, and not Ms.
Mirowski’s daughters, were members of MFV.69
We turn now to the linchpin in respondent’s argument under
section 2036(a)(2), namely, under section 4.5.1 of MFV’s
operating agreement Ms. Mirowski “alone held the power to
determine the timing of the distribution of the capital
transaction proceeds.” We have considered and rejected that
contention when we addressed respondent’s argument under section
2036(a)(1) with respect to Ms. Mirowski’s gifts. For the reasons
stated above, we reject respondent’s contention here in
determining whether at the time of Ms. Mirowski’s gifts and at
the time of her death Ms. Mirowski retained a right described in
section 2036(a)(2) with respect to the respective 16-percent
interests in MFV that she gave to her daughters’ trusts.
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that at the time of Ms. Mirowski’s gifts and at the time
of her death Ms. Mirowski did not retain, either alone or in
conjunction with any person, the right to designate the persons
who shall possess or enjoy the respective 16-percent interests in
MFV that she gave to her daughters’ trusts or the income from
such interests within the meaning of section 2036(a)(2).
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we hold that section 2036(a) does not apply to Ms. Mirowski’s
69See supra note 56.
Page: Previous 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008