The recent US Tax Court ruling in Wandry v Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-88
The
taxpayers were advised that they could institute a tax-free gift-giving plan through
transfers of Wandry LP partnership interests by using their annual gift tax exclusions
of $11,000 per donee under section 2503(b) and additional gifts in excess
of their annual exclusion of up to $1 million for each petitioner under section
2505(a) (Federal gift tax exclusions). Petitioners’tax attorney was also a
certified public accountant (C.P.A.) with 9 years of practice in public
accounting and 19 years of practicing law.
I
hereby assign and transfer as gifts, effective as of January 1, 2004, a sufficient
number of my Units as a Member of Norseman Capital, LLC, a Colorado limited
liability company, so that the fair market value of such Units for federal gift
tax purposes shall be as follows:
Name
Gift Amount
Kenneth
D. Wandry $261,000
Cynthia
A. Wandry $261,000
Jason
K. Wandry $261,000
Jared
S. Wandry $261,000
Grandchild
A $11,000
Grandchild
B $11,000
Grandchild
C $11,000
Grandchild
D $11,000
Grandchild
E $11,000
Tatal $1,099,000
Although the number of Units gifted is fixed on the date of the gift, that number is based on the fair market value of the gifted Units, which cannot be known on the date of the gift but must be determined after such date based on all relevant information as of that date.
Respondent argues that petitioners are liable for the tax imposed by section 2501 because they transferred completed gifts of fixed percentage interests to the donees and the gifts exceed petitioners’ Federal gift tax exclusions.
Respondent
presents three arguments to support this conclusion:
(1) the gift descriptions,
as part of the gift tax returns, are admissions that petitioners transferred
fixed Norseman percentage interests to the donees;
(2) Norseman’s capital
accounts control the nature of the gifts, and Norseman’s capital accounts were
adjusted to reflect the gift descriptions; and
(3) the gift documents
themselves transferred fixed Norseman
percentage interests to the donees.
percentage interests to the donees.
Respondent further argues that the adjustment clause does not save petitioners
from the tax imposed by section 2501 because it creates a condition subsequent
to completed gifts and is void for Federal tax purposes as contrary to public
policy. See Commissioner v. Procter, 142 F.2d 824, 827-828 (4th Cir. 1944),
rev’g a Memorandum Opinion of this Court.
Respondent’s
final argument raises an old issue that has evolved through a series
of cases where the Commissioner has challenged a taxpayer’s attempt to use a
formula to transfer assets with uncertain value at the time of the transfer.
Here,
under the terms of the gift documents, the donees were always entitled to
receive predefined Norseman percentage interests,5 which the gift documents essentially
expressed as a mathematical formula. For each of petitioners’ children, this
formula was expressed as:
Similarly,
for petitioners’ grandchildren this formula was expressed as:
x
= $11,000 FMV of Norseman
The
Court, in reaching its holdings, has considered all arguments made, and, to
the extent not mentioned, concludes that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit.
To
reflect the foregoing, Decisions will be entered for petitioners.
Tax Problem Got You Down?
Tax Problem Got You Down?
Contact the Tax Lawyers at Marini
& Associates, P.A. for a FREE
Tax Consultation at www.TaxAid.us or www.TaxLaw.ms or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid
(888 882-9243).
The Government appealed the decision
ReplyDeleteto the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year.
An appellate decision upholding Wandry would be
welcomed by practitioners – a reversal would not.
Neither is going to happen now. Per the Tax Court website, the Government has voluntarily dismissed its appeal.
The Internal Revenue Service said that it does not acquiesce in the Tax Court's March ruling in Wandry v. Commissioner, despite the recent withdrawal of the government's appeal.
ReplyDeleteThe Internal Revenue Service numbered Nov. 19 an action on decision (AOD 2012-04), that said the Service does not acquiesce in the Tax Court's March ruling in Wandry v. Commissioner.
ReplyDelete