Estate of Stewart v. Commissioner
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 16427, 617 F.3d 148, 106 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5710 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 26 U.S.C. § 2036(a)(1), if a decedent makes an inter vivos transfer of a property interest but, through an implied agreement, retains possession or enjoyment of only a part of the transferred interest, only a corresponding proportion of that interest's value is includible in the decedent's gross estate.
Facts:
- Margot Stewart and her son, Brandon Stewart, co-owned a house in East Hampton, splitting rental income and expenses evenly.
- Margot Stewart owned a five-story Manhattan brownstone where she and Brandon lived together on the first two floors, while the upper three floors were leased to a commercial tenant.
- On May 9, 2000, approximately five months after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, Margot transferred a 49% interest in the Manhattan property to Brandon, making them tenants in common.
- After the transfer, Margot and Brandon continued to live together in the residential portion of the Manhattan property.
- Following the gift, Margot continued to receive 100% of the rental income from the commercial tenant of the Manhattan property.
- During this same period, Margot paid the vast majority ($21,790.85) of the Manhattan property's expenses, while Brandon paid a small fraction ($1,963).
- Brandon received all the rental income from their co-owned East Hampton property and, contrary to their prior practice, did not remit Margot's share to her.
- Margot Stewart died on November 27, 2000, about six months after the transfer.
Procedural Posture:
- The Estate of Margot Stewart filed a federal estate tax return, reporting only a 51% interest in the Manhattan property.
- The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a notice of deficiency, contending that 100% of the property's value should be included in the gross estate under 26 U.S.C. § 2036.
- The Estate filed a petition in the U.S. Tax Court (the court of first instance) to challenge the IRS's determination.
- Following a trial, the Tax Court issued an opinion in favor of the IRS, holding that an implied agreement existed for the decedent to retain the benefits of the transferred 49% interest, making its full value includible in the estate.
- The Estate, as Petitioner-Appellant, appealed the Tax Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an implied agreement under 26 U.S.C. § 2036(a)(1) to retain the economic benefits of a transferred partial interest in real property require the inclusion of the entire value of that transferred interest in the decedent's gross estate, even if the decedent did not retain enjoyment of all aspects of the transferred interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Calabresi, J.
No. When a decedent retains possession or enjoyment of only a part of a transferred property interest, the gross estate includes only the value of the corresponding proportion of that interest. The court affirmed the Tax Court's finding of an implied agreement for retained enjoyment but held it was clear error to conclude this agreement covered 100% of the transferred 49% interest. The analysis must distinguish between the property's residential and commercial uses. For the residential portion, the co-occupancy of the donor and donee, where the donor does not have exclusive possession, is highly probative of the absence of retained enjoyment; Brandon's continued residence meant he enjoyed this portion of his interest. For the commercial portion, Margot's receipt of all rental income was 'very clear evidence' of an implied agreement to retain the economic benefit. Therefore, under 26 C.F.R. § 20.2036-1(c)(1)(i), the case must be remanded for the Tax Court to determine the specific proportion of the net economic benefit from the 49% interest that Margot actually retained, which requires an apportionment between the residential and commercial uses and a consideration of the expenses each party paid.
Dissenting - Livingston, J.
Yes. The Tax Court did not clearly err in finding that the terms of the implied agreement covered the entirety of the transferred 49% interest, and its full value should be included in the estate. The majority improperly focuses on what the transferee (Brandon) received rather than on what the transferor (Margot) retained, which is the focus of § 2036. In substance, nothing about Margot's relationship to the property changed after the transfer; she continued to live there as before, receive all the rental income, and pay nearly all the expenses. The majority's treatment of co-occupancy as near-dispositive evidence against an implied agreement misreads precedent and creates a significant tax loophole that invites sham intra-family transactions designed solely for tax avoidance.
Analysis:
This decision refines the application of § 2036(a)(1) to fractional interest gifts, particularly in the context of mixed-use family properties. It rejects an 'all-or-nothing' approach, mandating a proportional analysis to determine what portion of a transferred asset is included in an estate based on the extent of the retained benefit. The court's bifurcation of the analysis between residential and commercial uses provides a critical framework for future cases; it reinforces the high bar for finding retained enjoyment in co-occupancy situations while affirming that 'following the money' is key for income-producing assets. This creates a more nuanced, but also more complex, test that requires fact-intensive inquiries into the specific terms of any implied agreement between family members.
