TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Estate of Thelma G. Hurford, Deceased, Donor; G. Michael Hurford, Independent Executor
Docket Number: 23954-04
Judge: Holmes
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 12/11/2008
Pages: 86

SERV c STAT. FIJJs T.C. Memo. 008-278 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ESTATE OF THELMA G. HURFORD, DECEASED,. DONØR, G. MICHAEL HURFORD, INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR, Petitioner 'v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA REVENUE, Resp'ondent ESTATE OF THELMA G. HURFORD, -DECEASED, G. MICHAEL HURFORD, INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR, Petitioner _v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA REVENUE, Respondent Docket Nos. 23954 04, 23964-0 (cid:16)042 Filed December 11, 2008. William A. Roberts and Kyle Coleman, for petitioners. Nancy B. Herbert, Richard J. Hassebrock, and Gary R. Shuler, f or re spondent . MRVED 11 MS - 2 - CONTENTS FINDINGS OF FACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. The Hurford Family ............................... A. . B. Gary's Death. . C. Thelma's Diagnosis................................ D. Garza's Plan...................................... E. Execution of Garza's Plan - Phase I............... 1. Transfers to HI-1. . . 2. Transfers to HI-2............................ . 3. Transfers to HI-3. . . . Execution of Garza' s Plan - Phase II . . . . . 1. Value of a. HI-l's Value............................ b. HI-2's Value............................ . c. HI-3's Value. . . d. Discounts . . . . . . . . . How the Hurford Private Annuity Worked. . . . 2. Creation of 3 . Thelma Hurf ord' s Death and Tax Returns . Estate and Gif t . Tax Returns ' Audit . . . . the Private Annuity. . the FLP Property. . . . . . .«. . . . . . . G. H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OPINION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . What is .Includable in Thelma' s Estate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. B. Positions of The Private Annuity and the FLPs . . 1. Was the Private Annuity Effective to Remove . the Parties......................... . . Assets from Thelma' s. Estate? a. Was the Transfer of Thelma's Interest in . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the FLPs for the Private Annuity Bona Fide and for Adequate.and Full Consideration?. b. Did Thelma Retain a Prohibited Interest 2. in the Property She Transferred to Her children through the Private Annuity? . . . . ... . . . . . . . Were the FLPs Valid?. . . a. Was the Creation of . . . . the FLPs Bona Fide and . . . . . . . for Adequate and Full Consideration? . . . . . b. Did Thelma Retain the Possession or Enjoyment of, or the Right From, the Property She Transferred to the FLPs in Violation of Section 2036 (a) (1)?. to the Income C. D. Gif ts Thelma Made in February 2000 . The Family and Marital Trusts.................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II . Attorney' s Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · 3 3 6 11 13 16 19 25 27 28 28 29 30 31 31 33 34 36 43 45 45 47 48 52 52 58 61 61 72 75 78 78 III. Negligence. . . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80 MEMORANDUM FINDINGS O FACT AND OPINION HOLMES, Judge: It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a recently widowed woman in posses ion of a good fortune must-be in want of an estate planner. Thelma Hurford had devoted he life to family and friends, leaving the management of the .fina ces to her husband Gary. When he died suddenly, she had to learn what they owned and decide what to do with.it. While she str ggled -with this burden, she was herself stricken with cancer and so had to arrange the accelerated planning of her own estate. Two attorneys vied for her attention and she chose Joe B. Garza. She lost her life to the cancer. We must now decide how much of! her estate will be lost" to taxes . FINDINGS F FACT A. The Hurford Family Gary T.. Hurfòrd was born in W st Texas in unpromising circumstances and went at a young ge to work on oil rigs . There he met a petroleum e ginee whose lean clothes and new car suggested to young Gary that education might lead to a better life . He soon gave up roughneck and enrolled at the University of Texas. He discovered there that he had an aptitude for engineering, and after gradua ion he was hired by the Hunt Oil Company. He rose steadily and after 25. years became the company's first president not named Hunt. He prospered and grew rich. Thelma also came from a modest background, the daughter of immigrants . She was an elementary school teacher when she met Gary and they soon wed. In due course, she became a mother and devoted herself to working inside the home. Much·of this work lay in rearing three children; all of whom are now married with children of their own. The oldest is Gary Michael Hurford, known as Michael. Michael grew up in Texas, went to the University of Texas at Austin, and then to medical school in San Antonio. He became a psychiatrist and practices in Kentucky, where he also was a resident when the petition was filed. David T. Hurford is the middle child. David graduated from Southwest Texas State University, but has struggled with difficult personal problems, some of them severe, for much of his life. His parents and his siblings acknowledged this and have tried to protect him, particularly in his finances. While his parents were alive, David stayed close by and worked for many years on one of his dad's ranches--raising and selling cattle, fixing fences, and cutting and baling hay. The youngest Hurford is Michelle Hurford McCandless. Michelle also graduated from the University of Texas at Austin, andt shevworked in advertising until Octobêr of 1997, when Gary hired her to help with the family s bookkeeping--especially the preparation of the payroll for the eiïiployees whom Gary'hired to work on the farms and ranches that he had bought over the years. Michelle also kept the books for a 1 her parents' investments and bank. accounts. Michelle, out of duty and habit, took notes on nearly every meeting! she attended and every phone3call she listened to that involved Gary' s and The lma' s e s tate s . She uld al so meticulously list the questions thä.t she planned to ask during those meetings and calls. It appears that she learned these habits from her mother, who also kÈpt in her own planner detailed notes of seemingly every meeting she had. Michelle saved all these notes and turned them over to the Commissioner during discovery. We view Michelle's action as a strong indicator of her honesty and have used these notes extensively to reconstruct what happened after Gary died. But we use them with some caution. They show a general lack of undeirstanding--even some confusion--about the tax and estate- planning concepts at .issue in this case. . This is entirely understandable, since neither Mich lle nor her mother had an education in law or adcounting. E t the confusion of Michelle. and her siblings about these concepts, though it may have been rooted in their inherent dif f icul , was surely compounded by the barrage of professional advice they both sought and had directed against them. B. Gary's Death On April 8, 1999, Gary died... He and Thelma had amassed a considerable fortune as listed on Gary's estate tax return:1 Real estate Stocks and bonds Mortgages,. notes, and cash. Life insurance Miscellaneous property Hunt oil phantom stock Total $2,020,800 2,096/314 .934,413 2,300,000 1,342,880 5,552,377 14,246,784 The real estate included farms and ranches, as well as two houses: their primary home in Arlington, Texas; and a second home in Tyler that was closer to their agricultural property. This agricultural property amounted to about 2000 acres divided into 11 or 15 parcels--those records only sometimes combine those parcels that were contiguous. The stocks and bonds and other liquid investments were strewn among many different accounts at several banks. A large chunk was in options to buy stock in Nabors Corporation Services, Inc., which Gary had earned by serving on the Nabors board of directors. Another large chunk (by far the largest piece of the 1 Texas is a community-property state, and these numbers reflect their total wealth, not just Gary's interest. miscellaneouss property listed above) was $1.26 million in Gary's Hunt Oil: retirement plah, which: Thelma rollediover to. an IRA un. her name after his death. But the single biggest asset in Gary and Thelma's .estate was no ordinary.security. or ret ire ent plan, but something called Hunt Oi L phäntom stock.4. This phant om stiock is not aátually stock, but instead. a form of defer ed compensation ^that Hunt Oil gave to employees--letting them sh re in the conípany's· growth without the Hunt family's having dil te their own equity. Each ."share" of phantom stock was lued at approximately the price of a share of Hunt Oil commor stock,. as fixed by Hunt Oil each year on December 31. The dollar amount reported on Gary' s estate tax return was its value on December 31, 1998. Gary rece ved more from Hunt il than just compensation in these varied formã. Among the perks imØortánt to this case were tÃx-preparation and estate-planning services. While Gary was working,' Hunt Oil paid KPMG to pi'epare his 'tax returns; and Gary retained Santo "Sandy" Bi'hignano, formårly a partner in the respected Texas law firm of.Johnson & Gibbs, to plan his and Thelma's estates. The troubles that later entangl d the Hurfords had.their roots in the wills that Bisignano had drafted for them in 1993. These wills were mirror images of each othef hrId^ took a conservative ,approach to estate plánning. This was Gary s choicel-Bisignáno had suggest ed sl: ghtly more àggressivs techniques such as irrevocable life insurance trusts (ILITs) , grantor-retained annuity trusts (GRATs) , and family limited partnerships (FLPs).2 Gary instead chose to divide most of his estate into two trusts--a bypass trust and a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust. According to the Hurfords' wills, the property of whichever spouse died first would go into the two trusts, with the exception of the Arlington home and any personal effects, which would pass directly to the surviving spouse . The first trust set up in Gary's will was a bypass trust, called the "Family Trust." It was funded with $650,000, the estate-tax-credit equivalent amount.3 The Family Trust's . 2 An ILIT may remove life insurance proceeds from a decedent's estate by transferring ownership of trust. Bittker, et al., Federal Estate and Gift Taxation 371 (9th ed.. 2005). the policy to a A GRAT is a tax-saving device in which a grantor transfers assets into trust and retains an annuity payablë for a specified term. higher rate of return than specified in tables prescribed by the IRS, without the "extra" appreciation passes to the trust' s beneficiaries If the grantor survives the term and the assets enjoy a incurring gift or estate tax. Id. at 80-81. A FLP allows members of a family to transfer partnership interests to one another at a discount of marketability and lack of control) , which may reduce the tax that they might otherwise owe on the transaction. 600-02. (usually claimed for lack Id. at 136-37, 3 This is the amount that could pass estate-tax free (thus the description "bypass trust") to nonspouse beneficiaries in 1999. remaining in the trust would not be taxed at her death. Thelma's access to its assets was limited, but any money immediate purpose was to provide for the education, health, maintenance, or support of Thelma, heir children, and Gary' s mother. But its ultimate purpose w s to shield from taxation at Thelma' s death the original. Corpus of $650, 000 (or whatever' was left after distributions) . The rest of Gary' s estate went into a second trust called the "Marital Trust." Income from the Marital Trust was to be paid to Thelma. And* the principal was also available to her for her education, health, maintenance, and support. Gary' s will appointed Thelma executor of hisf estate 'and trustee of both the Family and Marital Trusts . Managing Gary' s estate as .well as: her half of the marital. property was a challenge for Thelma because Gary 1ad long tended» their finances alone. Thelma's children were similarly unfamiliar with how to manage such a large estate, so the banded together and sought the advice of several professional . Advice from Bisignano and KPMG was no longer free, because Hûnt Oil stopped paying their bills after Gary died. But BiÅignano and I{PMG at first remained members of the Hurfords' team, and it was at Bisignano's suggestion that they hired Chase Bank of Texas, N.A., to provide investment advice. Bisignano outlined for Thelma a plan to sett le GÅry' s estate . The first step ùas probating Gary' s will, which Bisignano quickly began by April 15, 1999. He then moved on to - 10 - identifying and valuing the assets.. This ended up taking a while, but Bisignano credibly testified that his progress was protracted by design, lest an inaccurate valuation of those assets undermine his effort to accurately calculate--before he prepared the tax return for Gary's estate--whether a QTIP election was more valuable to Thelma than a credit for prior transfers.4 As spring turned to summer in 1999, Thelma sought Bisignano's advice on her own estate plan. Bisignano again,took a conservative and thoughtful approach, recommending that she first make $225,000 gifts to Michael, David, and Michelle. The total of $675,000 in gifts equaled the'gift-tax exemption amount.' She decided to make these gifts·in February 2000. He 4 Property passing from a deceased husband to his surviving Sec. include property--for time or some other contingency. Sec. 2056(b) (1). Section wife generally is deductible from his gross estate. 2056(a). But this.deduction does not example, a life estate with remainder to children--in which the surviving spouse has an interest that could fail due to the lapse of 2056(b) (7) (A) creates an exception to this exception for qualified terminable interest property, the first spouse's death, but spouse's estate. throughout Rule references are to the Tax Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure.) the opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code. (The section references in this note and treating it deductible at includable in the surviving . Any ' Federal gift and estate-tax law allows a credit which a person can use either to reduce the tax on gifts made while the donor is alive (under sections 2505(a) and 2503(b) (2)) or against the estate tax imposed at death (under section 2010 (c)). used the credit amount available during 2000, which was $25,000 higher than the credit available to her husband in 1999, when his (continued...) Thelma _:11. - also. recommended thati she create a family limited partnership (FLP) into which she coùld transfer the farm and ranch properties, unifying:the land management within a single entity, perhaps with the plausible purpose of reducing the risk of liabïlity from. what:.were then actual operating businesses. . Bisignario later recommended a second FLP to hold Thelma s own financial assets. In August, Thelma also rolled Gary's retiremepnt assets ihto an IRA in her own name. Thelma, however, had little desire . to run the farms and ranches"herselfuso Bisignano began drafting leases for those (cid:16)042 properties, starting~ with a parcel in Navarro Countyt, dand5then moving ón to#all the properties in allas and Ellis counties . And thot;tgh Thelma continued tio empl y her son David to work on a ranch in Anderson-County until the nd of January 2000, .even her direct ·ìnvolvement 8 $225,000 gift, which included a one-yèar lease for 754 .acres.' in that. business ended when David received-his . C. Thel;ma' s Diagnosis At the beginning of 2000, Thelma began. feeling back pain, . which became so severe that on anuary 23 she went to an 5 (. . . continued) death led. to the creation of the $650, 000 Family Trust. lVfichael got flis $225, 000 in cash. David got $133,134 in cash and $91,866 in farm equipment, cattle, and lea(cid:0)541es.And Michelle got $177, 386 in cash and the cancellation of a loan in the amount of $47 , 164 . in 2000 to her sisters, children, and daughters- and son-in-law. Thelma alsd niade 'eight $10 , 0 0 0 cash gi f ts - 12 - emergency room. The diagnosis was cancer, and Thelma decided to have surgery in February 2000 . Her surgeon classified her disease as being already at stage three because it had already spread beyond its initial site to the surface of her liver. Surgery could not cure the disease, but it did succeed in . reducing the cancer' s size, and Thelma began chemotherapy immediately. Near the end of January 2000, Bisignano had begun.to move forward with Thelma's estate plan. He started drafting documents to create two.FLPs, one for the farm and ranch properties and another for Thelma's cash and investment assets. But by early February, while Bisignano was still working on the FLPs, Michael was already looking for a new attorney. Thelma had become dissatisfied with Bisignano, because (according to Michael) he did not relate well to the family and would often speak over their heads. Thelma was also concerned that he was not completing Gary' s estate tax return or her own estate plan quickly enough and worried that he was. too expensive. Michael volunteered to take the lead in trying. to find a replacement for Bisignano, but living in Louisville made this mission difficult and he turned to his brother-in-law, an orthopedic surgeon living near Houston," for advice. This brother-in-law recommended Joe Garza. Michael and Michelle s'poke with him, asking Garza to critique Bisignano' s - 13 proposed estate plan and make suggestions on what "he would ·do differently Their infatuatiòn with Garza Ñas understañdable. . We obsekved Bisignanò^ tò be' reserved and fastidious, and proud òf the high quality of his workk but w1th a>mannèr that-on fi st appearance is perhaps not the most anviting Garza, in contrast, is a model sof 'the amiable and pleasing man; and his :debut in the notes :ofi Thelmá's meetings~with him show that she thought him one of the. thost agreeable men (or, at least, lawyers) that she had ever met . Gar za ~ swif·tlyl persuaded helma that his- es tate plan was better for.her than Bisignano's and-she hired him on February 22,' 2000. Thelma dismissed Bisignano the very next day. D. Garzals Plan AcCording to Garzá, a "brilliant estate-planning strategy" i*s one "that saves estate tax." His plant was to separate Thelma's, the Marital Trust's and the Fainily Trust's assets into three . groups: (1) cash, stocks, d bonds; 3 (2) the Hunt Oil phantom; stock; and (3 ) the f arm and ranch 'propert.ies . Then; he created three FLPs, one to rece1ve each group of assets? giúing an interest' in each to' Thelma, 1Gar ' s. estateç Michael, David, and Michelle . Finally, Garza directed Thelma to sell her and'Gary' s estate' s interests in each FLP to Michael David and Michelle through a private annuitÿ agreement . - To understand Garza's plan,..we need tò step back.and explain a bit about- FLPs and private annui ïes. A FLPi uses two. entities: . - 14 - a limited partnership and either..a limited liability company (LLC) or a trust. The LLC or trust serves as the general partner of the limited partnership and thereby assumes any extraordinary liabilities associated with the property owned by the partnership. The limited partners of the partnership are typically family members who contribute something of value,' either in goods or in services, to the partnership.in exchange for their ownership share. Once the partnership interests are created, they are quickly rearranged by gift or will. The first obstacle that an aggressive. planner meets is the Code's insistence that property transferred either by will or by gift must be taxed at its fair market value. See.secs. 2031, 2032, 2512 and 25.2512-1, Gift Tax Regs. A planner using a FLP has to make sure that it is»not the assets in the partnership that are being transferred among.family members, but only interests in the partnership itself. This is important because due to factors such as lack of marketability and control, a partner's interest in the partnership often has a lower fair market value than the same partner's pro rata share of the assets' own fair market value. See Holman v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 12, 14, 19 (2008); Senda v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004- 160 (imposing a gift tax on the value of stock contributed to a partnership rather than the transferred partnership interests where partnership formalities were not respected), affd. 433 F.3d - 15 1044 (8 h Cir 2006) . - This would eem unusual--normal people typically .don't, try to reciüce the aîue of .their'hard-earned wealth. (cid:16)042 Like -FLPs,' private annuit-ies re another còmmon estate- planning tool. A private annuity is a transfer of property from one person to another in exchange for a þromise to make >eriodic p.ayments. These'paymënts* can last for the rest of the transferor's. life,-and the .IRS allows drafters. of private annuities to calculate the transferor's life expectancy using government-published actuarial tables. In theory, the value of the periodic-payment stream equals the value.of the transferred property, so the private- annuity removes the transferred property from the transferor s estate andigives-the transferee any appreciation in the transferred property's value. The usually unspoken usefulness of this device is greatest when'those arranging it know more about the particulars of their 'situation 7 Courts, including ,the circuit court . to which this case may be appealable, have nevertheless r cbgnized that such a reduction in immediately realizable faïr mar et value might be sensible for a ratioñal actor willing to pay fo the benefits bf management expertise, preservat-ion of. assets, liabilitpy. Estate sðf Kimbell, 371 calcula$ions may also be seen in earlier forms of the tional wealth transfer. Volsungs and Niblungs 5-8, 11-123 .36-39, 50-51, 59; 64-67 (H. Halliday Sparling ed. , Eirikr- Magnusson & William Morris trans . Walter Scott Publg . Co. , Ltd. 1888) to heir who reforges them into.new sword after waiting period, noting "Fain .would' we keep all our wealth till thát day of days" ) , (bequeathing shards of . sword nd avoidance of personal .3d át 257, 266. See Völsunga Saga: the. Story of And such intergenera- - 16 - than is reflected in the actuarial tables or--to be blunt--when children think their parent won't survive for very long. Anticipating this, the Secretary has long had regulations restricting use of the actuarial tables in cases of terminal illness.8 E. . Execution of Garza's Plan - Phase I . Garza got to work setting up the FLPs immediately after. he was hired. He first organized three limited partnerships and three LLCs . He named the LLCs Hurf ord Management No . 1, LLC (HM- 1) ; Hurford Management No. 2, LLC (HM-2) ; and Hurford Management No. 3, LLC (HM-3) . For each LLC he filed a certificate of organization and articles of organization with the secretary of state of Texas on February 24, 2000. He then prepared stock certificates, regulations, employment,agreements, and minutes of the organizational meetings. Each of the Hurfords received a one-fourth interest in each LLC. The Hurfords held an organizational meeting for each of the LLCs and elected Thelma president, Michelle secretary and treasurer, and Michael and David vice presidents. According to the employment agreements, each of the Hurfords was to receive compensation for serving as 8 The regulations define terminal illness to be an least a fifty-percent chance of death within a year. "incurable illness or other deteriorating physical condition" with at sec . 1. 7520 -3 (b) ((cid:0)540) to a private annuity must use the. transferor's actual life expectancy to calculate payments . Income Tax Regs. Income Tax Regs . .Sec . 1. 7520 -3 (b) (4 ) , Example, , In such cases , See the parties - 17 an officer, but these agreements -we:te never signed or used. .And no one signed the stock certifibaten, regulations, or organizational minutes either. To form ·the limited partnerships, Garza filed certificates of limited partnership with the Texas seár tàry of state on February 24, 2000. He named these limited partnerships Hurford Investments No. 1, LTD. (HI-1) ; Hur: ord Investments No. 2,. LTD. (HI-2)| |and Hurford Investments No. 3, LTD (HI-3) . On each certificate, Garza named ,as general partner the LLC whose name corresponded to the name of the partnership, e.g., HM 1 and HI-1. Garza completed organizing the FLPs ons March 20, 2000, by having the Hurfords sign agreements of limited partnership. These agreements show an unsteady draf ting ability to even an untrained eye--a täble of contents pointing to incorrect page numbers, a grant of a límited-parthership interest to the "Gary T. Hurford Trust" When no such trust existed at the time, and signature páges showing HM-1 as the general partner of all three partnerships . We find, howe er that Garzafat 1 ast intend d to use the same organizational structure for each of the FLPs, as shown by the following diagram :where x = 1, 2, or 3: - 18 - Limited Partners Thelma 48% Gary T. Hurford Trust 48% Michael 1% David 1% Michelle 1% FLP Hurford Investments No. X, LTD General Partner Hurford Management No. X, LLC 1% Members Thelma 1000 Shares Michelle 1000 Shares Michael David 1000 Sharès 1000 Shares An unusual feature of Garza' s plan was that he created the limited partnership interests before the partnerships were funded2. He testified that he did t his to avoid gift taxes when +Iichael, David, and Michelle creceiýed their 1-percent interests. Garza reasoned that by creating thë partnership interests first, each partner would start with a zero balance in his capital account and each capital account would .remain at rzero until that partner made a contribution. . So when Thelma and Gary' s estate funded the partnership, their.. capitial accounts were to have increasted by the amourit' each contr buted. Conversely, Michael, David, and Michelle did .not contri ute anything to the partnerships, so they held a 1-percent interèst in each partnership but had capital account balances of zero. 1. Transfers to HI-1 The Hurfords , created HI-1 to eceive stock and cash assets from Thelma, the Marital Trust, and the Fämily Trust. To move these assets into HI-1, Thelma sigr ed an undated letter drafted by Garza. Garza based this letter on a form that he used to fund the FLPs, but he didn't customize it beyond,the names of the accounts and the people arid e tities involved. Irí the 1 tter, Thelma asked Chase to . '.'transfer my above-referenced account with you into the name of the Limited Partnership." The accounts that she listed were the Thelma G. Hurford Investment Management '. Agency (THIMA), the Marital Trust, and Family Trust accounts. Thelma also requested. that . Chase ggi e 3herself, Michael; David, and Michelle "signatory and withdra als authority" on the HI-1 - 20 - account. At the end of March 2000, Thelma acting in-her capacity as president of HM-1, signed an agreement with Chase to open the accounts necessary to complete the transfers. Chase then opened three accounts for HI-1, using.the same names as the old accounts except that each was preceded by HI 1, e.g.,..HI-1 THIMA. Over the next three months, assets flowed into the H-1 THIMA account: Table 1: Transfers from THIMA to HI-1 THIMA Date ·Amount Originating Acct Destination Acct 4/12/00 $3,447,466 stocks THIMA . .HI-1 THIMA 471,949 cash THIMA HI-1.THIMA (274,417)cash . HI-1 THIMA THIMA ("to close out") $ $ $ 4/13/00 5/01/00 6/27/00 7/31/00 7/31/00 10/2/00 1/31/01 Total 273,275 stocks THIMA $ 88,683 cash from house sale THIMA $ $ $ 1,561 cash THIMA 351 cash THIMA 1 cash THIMA ("final distribution") $3,720,741 stocks THIMA $ 288,127 cash HI-1 THIMA HI-1 THIMA HI-1 THIMA HI-1 THIMA HI-1 THIMA HI-1 THIMA Thelma also set to work transferring the trusts' assets to the new HI-1 accounts: Tables 1 through 7, infra, shows the tax cost of the The parties did not stocks and bonds, not their fair market value on the transfer date. remedy this peculiarity of Chase's recordkeeping with summaries of securities on dates relevant value on the. date Thelma signed the private annuity, or the dates when payments under the annuity were made to her using those securities. to the case--for example, the market price of those their . - 21 Table 2: Tr'ansfers from the Marital Trust to HI-1 MT Date Amount Originating Acct Destination Acct 4/12/00 4 /13/00 5/01/00 6/27/00 9/08/00 Total . $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 447,179 stocks MT 72, 276 cash MT (1,198)cash HI-1 1 T . 90 cash . 1 cash MT MT 447,179 stocks MT 71,169 cash HI-l MT HI-1 ·MT MT ("t-o close out") HI-1 MT HI-1 MT HI-1 MT Table 3: Transfers from.·the "Family Trust to HI-1 FT Date Amount Originating Acct Destination Acct 4/12/00 $ . 570, 05"O stocks FT 4/13/00 5/01/00 6/27/00 10/2/00 Total $ $ $ $ $ $ 99,877 cash FT . (6,098)cash HI-1 FT 124 cash 1 cash . FT FT 570, 050 stocks FT 93, 904 cash HI-1 FT HI-1 FT FT ("to close out") HI-1 FT HI-1 FT HI -1 FT In late November or early Dece ber 2000, Thelma told Chase to transfer over $1 million from thé Gary Hurford estate account to HI-1. Thelma's letter, however, did not specify into which HI-1 account Chase should transfer t he funds . Chase acknowledged Thelma' s request in a December 8, 2 00, fax that asked her to sign an investment management agreement to complete the transfer. - 22. - After she signed the'agreement, Chase transferred the assets into a new account named "Thelma G. Hurford, Executrix. of The Estate of Gary T. Hurford, Deceased #1." In February 2001, Chase emptied this new estate account into the THIMA HI-1 account. Thelma requested a liquidaticin of her IRA on December 28, 2000, and asked that Chase transfer the funds from her IRA to HI-1. Chase completed most of that transaction on December 28 and 29, 2000 . These · various transfers can be understood bet ter in tabular form: Table 4: Transfers from GTH Estate Acct to GTH Estate Acct #1 Date Amount Originating Acct Destination Acct 1.2/29/00 $1, 077, 934 stocks GTH Estate GTH Estate #1 1/03/01 $ 4, 364 cash GTH Estate GTH Estate #1 Total $1, 077, 934 stocks GTH Estate $ 4,364 cash GTH Estate #1 Table 5: Transfers from TGH's. IRA to HI-1 THIMA Date Amount Originating Acct Destination .Acct 12/28/00 $ 56, 063 cash TGH' s . IRA HI-1 THIMA 12/29/00 $1, 092, 954 stocks TGH' s IRA HI -1 THIMA 3/15/01 $ 453 cash TGH' s IRA . HI-1 THIMA Total $1, 092, 954 stocks TGH' s IRA $ 56,516 cash HI -1 THIMA Then in February 2001, Chase moved most of the assets in the HI-1 MT, HI-1 FT, and Thelma G. Hurford, Executrix of The Estate of Gary T. Hurford, Deceased #1 accounts into the HI-1 THIMA account. On the form Chase prepared to complete the transfer it - 23 - listed Thelma as the "Primary Clie and/ "Beneficiary" for the HI-1 MT account. These last transfers are summarized in this table: Table 6: Transfers from HI-1 MT, HI-1 FT, .and GTH Estate Acct #1 to HI-1 THINA Amount 2 Originating Acct Destination Acct- 4, 574 cash HI-1 MT (cid:16)042 HI-1 THIMA 126, 534 bonds HI T . 1,178 cash HI-1 1 T 5 cash HI-1 1 428, 763 stocks HI-1 1 T 428,763 stocks HI-1 T 12 6, 534 bonds 5,757 cash HI-1 THIMA HI-1 THIMA HI-1 THIMA HIlí THIMA HI-1 TH1MA 10,873 cash HI-1 FT HI-1 THIMA . Date 2/07/01 2/26/01 2/27/01 3/02/01 3/15/01 Total f rom HI-1 .MT 2/07/01 2/26/01 2/27/01 . 3/02/01 3/15/01 Total f rom HI-1 FT $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 151,636 bonds. HI-1 FT 1,164 cash HI-1 FT 9 cash HI-1 F 565 594 stocks HI-1 F $. 565,594 stocks HI-1 F $ $ 151, 636 bonds 12,046 cash HI-1 THIMA HIa1 THIMA HI-1 THIMA HI-1 THIMA HI-1 THIMA 2/26/01 $1, 077, 934 stè>cks GTH Es ate Acct- #1 HI-1 TH1MA $ $ $ $ 20 cash GTH Estate Acct #1 HI-1 THIMA 225 cash GTH Es ate Acct #1 HI-1 THIMA 63 cash GTH Estate Acct #1 HI-1 THIMA 28 cash GTH E ate Adct #1 HI-1 THIMA $1,077,934 stocks GTH Es ate Acct #1 HI-1 THIMA $ 336 cash 3/02/01 3/15/01 4/06/01 4/09/01 Total from GTH Estate Acct #1 The entire series of transfers is summed up in this diagram: - 24 - HI-1 Transfers THIMA HI-1 THIMA TGH's IRA . Family Trust Marital Trust GTH' s Estate Acct HI-1 Family Trust . HI-1 Marital Trust GTH Estate Acct No. 1 -- ). TGH Annuity Acct - 25 The Hurfords: acknowledge that there were problems with cthe Chase HI÷l accounts . The biggest as .thst throughout the year . before she died, Thelma remained thle'sole signatory on many of these accounts, and kept pouring money 'and assets into them even after they had supposedly been used to pay for the private annuity. The Hurford children blain that they tried on numerous occasions to have Thelma' s name removed from the HI-1 accounts, but were always unsuccessful. Another serious problem was that not all the transfers werefdeposits.90n April 14, 2000, just days after she started moving money into 'the HI-1 accounts, Thelma had Chase transfer $65,000*from "my Limitéd Partnership "#1 (TH) account . to the personal Chase [ hecking adcount] . " Then a few'days later,- ·she had Chase transfer $25,00û from "mydimited Partnership #1 Account" to "myTBank ofs America checking account. " Michelle credibly explained that Thelma s1gned these:transfers because Chase was confused about who hÊd authörity under these accounts, and that Thelma needed the money to make an estimated tax payment . There is no evidence hat any of tlîis backwash of money benefited the HI-1 partnershi itself in any way 2. Transfers to HI-2 The Hurfords created HI-2 tö receive the Hunt Oil phantoni stock. Garza preparedtanother of h s form letters to notify Hunt Oil that Thelma wanted the phantom stock"moved to HI-2. FRichard Mashman, Hunt's transfer agent for,thebstock as well.as its vice - 26 - president and general counsel, received the letter on March 24, 2000, , and quickly sent Thelma a list of documents that he needed before -he would okay the transfer: 1. 2. 3. Letters testamentary identifying Thelma as executrix; An excerpt as the beneficiary; from Gary's will identifying her Documentation showing that the phantom stock was transferred from Gary's estate to Thelma; and 4. An assignment from Thelma to HI-2. Garza faxed Massman the letters testamentary in May, but then let things slide--neither the Hurfords nor Garza communicated with Massman again until that fall. On October 20, 2000, Michael called Massman to discuss the transfer of the phantom stock, and Massman became concerned about Thelma's multiple roles as beneficiary, executrix, and trustee. To allay these concerns, he asked Thelma for a letter stating that Thelma was approving the . transfer under all three roles. As Massman himself credibly put it, "we kind of operate on the bomb-throwing grandchild principle"--meaning that he wanted to protect Hunt Oil from any competing claims to the phantom stock. This prompted Garza to send Massman an; indemnity letter on November 18, 2000, but this letter was as sloppy as the other paperwork he'd prepared, including a space on a signature line for "Daniel" .instead of David. Massman is a meticulous man, and - 27 he wanted the alètter corrected.' But it took Garza almost two months to fïx his mistakes. The second letter satisfied Massman, though/ .and on January It5, 200L, M ssman responded with 'his own letter stating that Hunt Oil recogni2ed HI-2'as the ownert of the phantom'ÀÜock; Even though Hunt di not receive all the necessary documents until Januar 2001 it reported in its internal records that the transfer ccurred on March 22, 2000, the day Thelma' sent the first letter requesting the transfer. 3. Transfers to HI-3 The Hurfords created HI-3 to receive the real property (except for the houses 'in Arlington and Tyler) held by Thelma the Marital Trust, and the Fathily T ust. Toicomplete this chores, Garza prepared twenty deeds for Thelma to sign. Why twenty? We ' re not sure . We could not f igure out by examining the deeds how eleven parcels (or fifteen, if. a couple contiguousï properties were divided) had multiplied into t ehty i There was also anothér patent piroblem with" the déeds . Gar a had draf tèd each deëd so that it .conveyedsthe property to "Hu^rford No. 3,*Ltd." not "Hurford Investments No. 3, LTD." Garza'filed the deeds with the counties on March 23, 2000 ; But even twenty deeds were not enough: Garza failed to prepare ,a deed for a parcel that was in both Ellis . and Dallas Counties . ! Garza waited until April 10., 2002, and then mistakenly deeded th s parcel to "Hurford No. 3, Ltd." too. e . - - 28 - Thelma Hurford herself maintained the insurance policy on the farm and ranch properties now lying (maybe) in HI 3. The Commissioner suggests that Thelma was paying for that insurance, but the record is not clear. We do find that she had a friendly relationship with the insurance agent and spoke with him about renewing the policy in July 2000. We also find that Thelma's and. Michelle's names remained on the Bank of America Farm Account unti*l December 2000, when the account's name was finally changed to "Hurford #3 DBA Hurford Farms." F.. Execution of Garza's Plan - Phase II Michael and Michelle took the next step in Garza's estate plan and entered into a private annuity with Thelma on April 5, 2000, a bit more than two weeks after the FLPs had been formed, but a week before even the first transfers of property from Thelma and the Trusts to the FLPs. Through.this agreement, Thelma purported to sell Michael and Michelle a 96.25-percent interest in HI-1, HI-2, and HI-3 for a "fixed annual income·for the rest of her life." David did not sign the private annuity and the extent of his obligations under the agreement is a problem we discuss below. See infra, p. 53. 1. Value of the.FLP Property One key to creating a private annuity capable of withstanding audit is valuing the assets being sold so that the amount of the annuity is accurate. The values Garza used in his - 29 calculations appear in two nearly identical unsigned létters that he wrote on April 4, 2000 The-first two^sectioñs of both letters are the same lh those sections; Garza listed the totab values for themässets tin each FDP He,then calôulated the value of Thelma' s inì(cid:0)576erest in each partne ship by multiplyirig the total value of the FLP by. 96.25 percent. The third section is where the letters diverge. ,. In that section, GaÈza calculâted the discounted value of Thelma' s intere t in, each:FLP by multiplying the value of thàt interest by a dis ount factor, and then summing them to get a "Grand Total Figure:. In one of the letters, i (cid:16)042 however he used . lower dis count f act ors and 'inc luded sThelma ' s IRA in the "Grand (Total Figure . " - The (cid:16)042 Grand Total Figure on this letter was not -correct due to an ar thmetic error.h a. . HI l's Válue In his April 4 letters, Gärzá separated H1-l's assets into two classes. He reported that the tocks hand bonds were worth $2, 115, '740 and. that the mortgage nó s and cásh were valued at $1,134,593. Wevdon't know where Ga a got these numbers -while they are close :to those on Gary's es ate tax5return, they differ by about $200,000.. They are ailso si nificantlyslower thanethe minimum of.more than $5.5 million th t the Hurfords agree was transferred into HI-1.f° And they ir no way take into account During the course of litigation, the estate hired an appraiser, to determine the fair market value of the FLP interests ..). (continued: . - 30 - the changes · in the composition of Gary' s and Thelma' s assets . in the year after he died. Assets in several accounts were moved to Chase, .where normal trading further reduced the similarity of the Hurfords' portfolio transferred to the FLPs and the.ir portfolio, at the date of Gary' s death, b. HI-2's Value In his April 4 letters, Garza valued the phantom stock at $5, 552, 377 . That is · the same value that he reported on Gary' s estate tax return. It comes from a letter that Massman had sent Bisignano in May 1999 that included an estimated value for the . phantom'stock as of December 31, 1998. Garza testified that he used this value because it was the "most current information that we had" and "it didn' t appear to me that the value was increasing very much. " But we know that the December 1998 value was already out-of-date because Hunt Oil recalculated phantom-stock.values at the end of each calendar year.. And we specifically find that the value of the phantom. stock was increasing. In February 2000, Massman met with a Chase employee to discuss the phantom-stóck plan and during that meeting he estimated that the phantom stock was already worth $6 . 4 million, which we now f ind was its value 1° ( . . . continued) after applying discounts. value of assets contributed from Thelma and the "Gary T. Hurford Trust" to the partnerships . The appraiser determined the stated value of . HI-l' s cash, stocks, bonds and mortgage notes was $5,524,641 as of March 20, 2000. The appraiser's letter listed the when the FLPs were formed--as 'even tlhe estate s eNpert witness conceded. . c. t HI-3's Value In his April 4 lettérs, Garza listed the value of HI-3. as $2 020, 800 . This was again based o the -same valuatiof1 used to report real estate values ion Garý' s estate táx rëturn.*' But using the number from .the return was¼bong.1 Thòse real- estate values came from an appraisal t-hat BÎsigna o had prepared and reflect the properties' ·values on April 12h1999, the day Gary died,' and Garza made noveffort to-cònsider an change in their values in the year thàt had'passed. The $2,020,800 reported on Gary's estate tax return also included the Arlirigton änd iTyler houses, and* the Èllis7Dallas county pröpert , none òf-which was actually transferred to HI-3. Thls, necessar11y caused a misstat ement of the value of thë property that Garz was try r1g to move out of Thelma's own estate. d. Discounts . The method :that Garza used tò ick the discount factors to apply to the FLP intèrests was simi arly haphäzajd. We know from Michelle's notes thät Garza brägged that he had "experiérice obtaining 50 percent discounts in s tt-lements»ons estates with IRS, and also [he] had coached a la yer i,n Mississippi iny a valuation battle with IRS, änd he got a 50 percent discount." - 32 - But Garza chose not to go for these maximum discounts with the Hurfords. Instead, he contacted several valuation appraisers. Garza sent a letter to one of these appraisers on March 8, 2000, asking him to call and tell him his "general approach, estimate of discount, and proposed fees." After their discussion, Garza noted in Thelma's file that the appraisals would cost $6,500 and that "[h]is discount for.the marketable securities would be 32-36 [percent,] for Phantom stock, 36-44 [percent,] and for the real estate[,] 36-48 [percent]." In any event, the.appraisals were never done. Garza chose instead to use his own discount percentages, but even the precise percentages that he chose are unclear from·the record. They fell, more likely than not, within the range bounded by the two versions of his April 4 letteri Partnership Discount Taken for Lack of Marketability and Lack of Control Hurford Investments No. 1, Ltd 25-32 percent Hurford Investments No. 2, Ltd 25-36 percent Hurford Investments.No. 3, Ltd 30-42 percent We find with more confidence that Garza's calculations for the value of the annuity are not transparent. To clean up some of the problems, the estate offered two expert witnesses--Mr. Preti and Mr. Henderson. One testified that the discount factors were within acceptable limits. The - 33 - other testified that,1while Garza ndervalued'the FLPs, the $80', 000 monthly payménts exceed What the annuity payment would have been had the FLPs been*correctly valued. 2. Creation of thé. Private Annuity " WithT tlie FLP . values and discounts- set, Garza calculated the amount òf the annuity two different ways. He first consulted a mortality table and published interesti rates included in a BNA tax portfolio and made the calculat ån'by hando Using this method, he' computéd an annuity: paym nthslightly below $70, 000 a month. Then he used a computer*prohram .to redo the calculation and decided that the annuity should instead be pegged at about $80, 000 a month. tGarza advised the Hurfords that they should use the higher ñumber because it was "tnore conservative . " The private annuity that Garza prepared also had another . peculiarity: « It completely omitted any mentionCof David Hurford, listing only Michael ánd Mic:helle as purchasers of Thelma' s interësts in HI±1, HI-2, sand ,HI-3 añd obligors' of the duty to make ~the iñonthly payments tó her 11 who testified on this point weré credible, 'and therefore re find that Thelma wantéd to transfer .one-third of her partnership interests to David. But she .also wanted: to protect both him and tl e asséts, so she thought it best not to give him 's1.gmature authority. Garza testified that he knew what Thelmamintended, but he could not explain how the agreement- he drafted reflected in any way - 34 - Thelma's intent to give each of her children an equal share. Michael and Michelle claimed to believe that the private annuity transferred one-third of. Thelma's partnership interests to David, and that David would be obligated to make the payments .. On this point, we do not find them credible. Instead we find that they privately agreed to accomplish their mother's desire to give David a third of the estate, but keep him away from decisionmaking authority by keeping his name off the private annuity--just promising themselves that they would distribute. to him a third of the estate when the time came (i.e., when Thelma died) . On April 5, 2000, Thelma and Michelle signed the documents. Michael was in Kentucky so the agreement was mailed to him. He signed them and mailed them back. Neither David.Hurford nor Chase reviewed the agreement before it was signed. 3. How the Hurford Private Annuity Worked O To receive the annuity payments; Thelma opened an account named "Thelma Hurford Annuity -Account" (THAA). at Chase. Michael asked that Chase pay Thelma by transferring assets from the HI-l THIMA account into the THAA account. Thelma received her first annuity payment in May 2000, but she did not want all of that payment transferred into her THAA account. She herself asked . that Chase transfer $40, 000 of cash into her account at Boston Safe Deposit & Trust and $40, 000 in stocks to the THAA. She as ed t]2at- Chase make all t her pa ents by tran ZeÊring securities from the .HI-1 account into sher THAA account. - . Table 7: Transfers TGH' s Annuity Account r m HI 1 THIMA to (opened (cid:0)540/17/00) Paymen Date Amou13t 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 5/15/00 5/19/00 6/06/00 6/08/00 7/03/00 7/03/00 8/01/00 8/01/00 9/01/00 9/01/00 10/4/00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 39, 991 cash (deposited to Nations Fund) 30, 570 stocks 36, 420 sto ks 536 cash 3 casl 100,411 sto ks (or $105,636) 98 cas 90, 384 .(cid:0)541to] s (or $91, 512) 144 cash 87, 586 stoc}Ss (or $91, 892) , 214 casl The .Commissioner argues that the annuity payments didn' t It appears that he is instead of fair markèt alues. consistently total . $80, 000 each month. using the tax-cost numbers reflected on the Chase account statements, Commissioner argues that3in May 2000, payments totaled only $70,561. We find, however, transferred wass$39,397 and cash was $39,990, In June, But $78,000, and in July it was approxiÈatelý. $78,000. find that there was not a significaÂt variation-in Thelma's monthly annuity payments . the Commissione¿ claims Thdlma received only $39, 956. the fair market value of additions ,to the account was over For example, the that the fair market value of stocks totaling $79,387. We therefore The problem of distinguishinc) cost and value numbers which we've already noted, supra, note 9, here, because the tax cost reported in HI-1 THIMA statements doesn't match the tax cost reported tin the- annuity statements. In this table, we list the annuity-statement value first, and the HI-1 THIMA-values in parentheses . is made more difficult 6 7 '7 8 8 9 9 10 10 - 36. - 68,783 stocks 77 cash 158,237 stocks 59 cash 75,290 stocks ·75 cash 53,567 stocks 47 cash 81,529 stocks 658,520 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 10/6/00 11/1/00 11/1/00 12/1/01 12/1/00 1/02/01. 1/02/01 2/01/01 2/01/01 TOTAL G. Thelma Hurford's Death and Tax Returns Thelma's friends who testified were completely credible in their description of how bravely Thelma struggled with her can'cer and how positive her attitude remained throughout the multiple surgeries and rounds of chemotherapy she endured. But her cancer never went into remission and,. while she was in the hospital after her last surgery, she died on February 19, 2001. After Gary died, Thelma had endured more than disease. She was also responsible in some way for numerous tax returns as either an individual, executrix, trustee, "partner, or member of an LLC. KPMG had at first continued to prepare her tax returns, but with Hunt Oil no longer paying the bill, she went to Ga za and asked him in July 2000 to refer her to a new firm. He recommended two, and she hired one of them=-Turner & Stone. Before the switch, KPMG had prepared four returns: - 37 1999 Income Tax Return, Form 1041, Gary T. Hurford Family Trust (cid:16)042 1999 Income Tax Return, Form 1041, Estate of Gary T. Hurford 1999 Income Tax Return, Form 1041, Gary T. Hurford Marital Trust 1999 Income Tax Return, Form 1040, Gary and Thelma Hurford Turner & Stone prepared the" foilowing returns 2000 Income Tax Return, Form 1041, Gary T. Hurford Family Trust 2000 Income Tax Return,. Form 1041, Gary T. Hurford Marital Trust (cid:16)042 2000 2002 Partnership Ta Returns, Forms '1065, Hurford Management No 1, LLC (cid:16)042 2000-2002 Partnership Tax Returns, Forms 106$, Hurford Management Nou2 i LLC e 2000-2002 Partnership Tax Return, Forms 1065, Hurford Management No 3, LLC 2000-2002 Partnership Tax Returns, Forms 1065, Hurford Investments No 1, LTD 2000-2002 Partnership Tax Returns, Forms 1065,, Hurford Investments No 2, LTD 2000-2002 Partnersh.ip Tax Returns, Forms 1065, Hufford Investments No 3,. LTD 2000 Income Tax Return, F rm 1041, Estate of Gary? T. Hurford 2000 Gift Tax Return, For 709, Thelma Hurfor 2000 Income Tax Return, F rm 1Ó40, Thelma Hurford (cid:16)042 2001 Income Tax Return, F rm 1041, Estate of Gary T. Hurford Garza prepared two returns: - 38 - (cid:16)042 Estate Tax Return for Gary T. Hurford, Form 706, signed by Thelma as Executrix on 7/11/00 (cid:16)042. Estate Tax Return for Thelma G. Hurford, Form 706, signed by Michael as Executor on 7/9/01 The first return relevant to this case is the estate tax return for Gary's estate. Garza himself prepared the Form 706 and Thelma signed it on July 11, 2000. We note especially a $6,543,236 deduction claimed on the return's "Schedule M-- Bequests, etc., to Surviving Spouse." Gary's estate took the. deduction because it was electing to treat this sum as QTIP property. The problem is that we have no idea which property is included in that number. On the schedule M it is only described as "QTIP". At trial, when asked about the number, Garza replied that he didn't remember how he computed it'.. Also on July 11, 2000, Thelma signed 1999 returns for herself and the Marital Trust. (Her 1999 return was actually a joint.return, and she also signed it in her capacity as executrix of Gary's estate.) Both these returns were prepared by KPMG. Then Turner & Stone entered the scene. That-firm prepared tax returns for each of the FLPs. These returns were signed by Michelle and filed on July 8, 2001. The K-1s from each of the returns show that, during 2000, Michael's, David's, and Michelle's interest in each partnership went from 1 percent to 33 percent, while Thelma's and Gary's es.tate's interest -dwindled O from 48 to O percent. The K-1s also sho that Michael, David and Michelle each made the followirig capital contributions to the FLPs in 2000: HI-1 Capital Contribution HI-2 Capital . Contribut.ion HI-3 Capital Contribution $1, 968, 957 $2, 088, 593 $556, 822 These numbers appear to be complete fictions--we specifically find no evidence of money coming into or services provided for any of the FLPs or LLCs from the; three Hurford children, much less the millions of dollars, that Ti2rner & Stone report;ed. . The LLCs (1-percent owner of each FLP) reported these capital contributions to the FLPs : HI-1 Capital Cont r ibution . HI-2 Capital Cont r ibut ion HIi3 Capital Cont r ibut ion $59, 665 $63, 291 $16, 872 On Thelma's and the estat of Gary Hurford's K-1s the space for "capital contributed during year" wäs left blank. The schedule D for HI-2 shows a $6,411,000 capital gain on the "phantom stock interest--Hunt Oil" and a sale date of December 30, 2000, eten though the Hurfords claim that the transfer was not a taxable event. t trial, Michelle explained that the gain was reported in 2000 ecause Chase had concerns about the phant;om stock's ownershìp The'concern was ·reasonable- -Hunt Oil had not sent certificates to the Hurfords .showing that ownership had passed to HI-2. Garzd and Chase got together to discuss the issue and decided that, if the Hurfords did not have the certificates when it was time to file HI--2's return, they would take the conservative approach and report that the phantom stock had been distributed. Turner & Stone also prepared the final tax returns .for the Family and Marital Trusts on June 29, 2001, and they were signed by Michael as successor trustee to his mother. There is no other evidence that the trusts were terminated. Michelle believed that Thelma terminated the trusts in early March 2000 by transferring all their property to the FLPs.' This cannot possibly be true, since the bank records showed that Thelma didn't succeed in even beginning to move money into the HI-1 accounts until a week after those same accounts had supposedly been used to buy the private annuity. See supra p. 21, Tble. 2 & 3. The tax returns for the LLCs--HM-1, HM-2, and HM-3--were prepared by Turner & Stone and' signed by Michelle on July 3, 2001. The K-1s from each of those returns show Michael's, David' s , and Michelle ' s ownership in each. LLC was 33 . 333334 percent at the end of 2000. Their K-1s also showed that each of them made capital contributions to the LLCs in 2000: HM-1 Capital Contribution HM-2 Capital Contribution HM-3 Capital Contribution $19, 888 $21, 097' $5, 624 - 41 None .of the LLCs' returns included a K 1 f or the lma . And none of these capital cóntributions. was act ally made . The estate tax return'for Thel a's estàte was signed by Garza as preparer and by Michael as exe u or .on July 9, 2001, though it was not filed until September 26, 2001. - On the .return Garza answered "No" to the following four quéstions: (cid:16)042 Did thÃ decedent, at the time of. déÀth, o r any interest in a partnership * held corporation? * * .or [a] closely (cid:16)042 Did the decedent make any transfers described in section 203.5, 2036, 2037, or 2038? (cid:16)042 Were there in existence a the timel of the decedent's death: decedent under which the lecedent possessed any power, beneficial Any tr sts created by the interes , or trusteeship? (cid:16)042 Was the decedent ever the beneficiary of a trust for which . a. deduction was claimed by the estate ,of a pre-deceased spouse undèr section 2056(b) (7) and which is not reported on his return? Whether Garza correctly answer d. the first two of -these questions is, as we shal11 see,, a ce tral issue in this.case. Whether he answered the third quest on correctly is -also in dispute: Though.Thelma's, estate cl ims thatt transferring property out .öf .the Maritäl and Fam ly Trusts>terminated them, the· Commissioner argues tlÈat proper y»Was left._in the trusts by Garza' s f aulty execution of his aplar Garza's answer of "no" to the final question is just egregiously false . He imself hàd prepared Gary' s -estate ·tax . return and should havé known thàt sec io 20Ê6 (b) (7) rÉfers to a - 42 - QTIP trust like the one for which he claimed a deduction on that return." The assets reported on Thelma's estate tax return were: Arlington residence Thelma Hurford annuity account Mortgages, notes, and cash Life insurance Miscellaneous property Total $165,000 348,296 282,660 5,000 45,710 846,666 The estate reported that Thelma made no taxable gifts other than gifts includable in her gross estate. Thelma's estate took a $45,000 deduction for attorney's fees Michael, who was now executor for both his parents' estates, signed and filed a 2000 Form 1041 prepared by Turner and Stone for Gary's estate on July 12, 2001. On this return, he reported half the proceeds (the other half being Thelma's community property) from the exercise of the optións for Nabors stock and its subsequent sale as well as the sale of the house in Tyler He also reported $194,921 in the "other income" section as the estate's portion of the private annuity. This is odd because, even though Gary's estate owned 48 percent of each FLP, it was not a party to the private annuity nor was it meant to be. Gary's will directed the residuary of his estate to the Marital Trust, which allowed for a QTIP election. - 43 Michael also filed Thelma's 2000 gift-tax return using Form 709 on August 12 2001. This retur was also prepared by. Turner & Stone, and they reported that Thelina made $775,000 in gifts, $675, 000 of which were· taxable . These included the $225, 000 gifts ;she had made to each of her âhildren; the $10., 000 gifts to her children and other relatives, and two $10, 000 trusts^she created for her grandchildren. They also reported that she owed no tax on these gifts because she whs using her-uñified credit. The preparer answered "no" to the q estion " [h] ave you (the donor) previouslys filed a Form 709 or any other year? The final return was Thelma's Last individual income tax return, which Michael filed on Auguht 12, 2001, after Turner & Stone . prepared it . (cid:16)042They reported that the IRS owed Thelma a . $238, 948 refund, though the refund had not been included as an 'I asset on Thelma.' s estate- tax return Most of .this reported income came. from he n -half int t in the proceeds from. the sale of the_ Nabors stock and herl accumulated income from the private annuity. H. . Estate and Gift Tax Returns Audit On November(183 2004,. Thelma's estate received two.notices of deficiency--one for her 2000. est te tax return and the other for her 2000 gift tax return: s The otices set out large deficiencies and penalties: - 44 - Estate Tax Return Gift Tax Return Deficiency Penalties $9,805,082 1,956,066 $8,314,283 1,662,857 . The notice of deficiency prompted by the gift tax return characterized the $14,981,722 Thelma transferred under the guise of the private annuity as gifts to Michael and Michelle because the.annuity's real fair market value was $0. The noticè of deficiency sent to the estate had a longer list of adjustments: (cid:16)042 The properties in Ellis and Dallas counties should have been included in Thelma's estate. (cid:16)042 The value of the THAA at Thelma's death was $426,206 and not $348,296. (cid:16)042 Thelma's estate should have included her one-half interest in a Bank of America account and all of a Deutsche. Bank account. (cid:16)042 The private annuity was a sham and all the property that she transferred to Michael and Michelle should have been included in her estate. . (cid:16)042 The transfers to HI-1,=HI-2, and HI-3 should be included in Thelma's estate under section 2035. (cid:16)042 The estate failed to substantiate a $45,000 deduction for attorney fees. (cid:16)042'The $675,000 in gifts that Thelma made in 2000 are includable in her estate. The penalties asserted in both notices were for negligence or disregard of the rules and regulations. Thelma's estate has conceded an increase in the estate's value of $3,381,999 because Garza failed to report the money 45 Thelma received when she ligtíìdated her IRA, her -individual tax refund, and?the proceeds from the sale of the' Nabors stock. The estate also concedes that the true value of +Thelma' s THAA account was $426,206 The'main issue that we re·left to decide is what else should.have been incltided?-specifically, whether Thelma s transfers to the FLPs and the subsequent private-annuitý . transaction were valid under 'sections 2035, 2036 and 2038. Also at issue: What. is the effect -of t e QTIÈ election made on Gary' s estate tax return; Should the $675, 000 in gi 2000 be excluded froth her estate tax return?; ts that Thelma made in May the estate' deduct $45 000 in.attorney's fees?; Is Thelma's estate liablé for section 6662 penalties? I. What is Includable In Thelma's Estate? OPINION The Code imposes a tax on a de edent' s taxable estate, which it defines as the value of the gross estate minus any allowed deductions. Secs. 2001(a), 2051. The gross estate is the value of the property in which a decedent had an interest at the time of her death. Sec. 2033. Sections 2034 through 2045 tell us what property to include in that estate . In this case, the Commissioner argues that sections 2635, 2036 and 2038 bring'back into Thelma's estate the property tliat Garza tried to transfer out of it via the FLPs and privat±e nnuity. - 46 - Section 2036 (a) (1) includes in a decedent' s gross estate property that she transferred to another but in which she keeps a right to possession or enjoyment or income until death. The paradigm is a gift or low-bal'l sale from A to Brof property in which A retains a life estate. And the target is lifetime transfers that are essentially testamentary in nature. United States v. Estate of Grace, 395 U.S. 316, 320 (1969); Estate of Bongard v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 95, 112 (2005) . Section 2036 (a) (2) includes in the estate property in which a decedent keeps until death a right to designate a person who gets possession or enjoyment of, or the income from, the transferred property. It covers many of the same situations also governed by section 2038 (a) (1) , Estate of Wall v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 300, 313 (1993),. which includes in an estate any property that a decedent transfers while keeping a right to revoke or change the transfer. Both sections 2036 and 2038 contain the same parenthetical exception for bona fide sales for an adequate and full consideration. Secs. 2036(a), 2038(a) (1). The Commissioner also relies on section 2Ó35(a), which requires us to reach back and include property in Thelma's estate if section 2036 or 2038 would have included it in her estate but for her terminating her retained interest within three years of death. Depending on how these s ctions affect 'what's included in Thelma's grosswestate, we may also have to decidee what. property should be included because of the QTIP election made on -Gary' s estate tax retiurn and a potential rm1scalculation in the estate- tax computation arlsing from the gifts Thelma.made during the last several months of her 'life . A. Positions of the Parties Apart from; some-comparatively inor concessions, the estate claims that Thelma's estate and gifì tax returns were correct It acknowledges Garza' s sloppiness bùt .argues that Thelma s estate plan should be,respected desþite sall. the missteps. On the major questions,g it açgues that sections 2035, 2036, and 2038 don't apply because Thelma,trausferred her property into the FLPs and then _into the. private annu ty throùgh bona fide sales for adequate and ; ful? consideratlon It also contends that none of thes sectionä apply because The ma did. ot retain possession or enjoyment of, or the right to re ei e income from, the property after it was transferred. . The Commissioner attacks the entire estate plan as nothing more than a transparently thin subst itute. for a will. He argues first that the property transferred to the FLPs is includable in Thelma's· estate because Thelma kept control over the assets after the transfer, and,because,there was an implied agreement among the.Hurfords for Thelma to do so. He also argues that Thelma's - 48 - transfer of her property (and the property of the Trusts) in exchange for an interest in the FLPs was neither bona fide nor . done for adequate and full consideration. The same is true for the exchange, only two weeks later, of her interest in those FLPs for the private annuity: The- Commissioner argues that there is grossly insufficient evidence that the exchange of Thelma's interests in the FLPs for the private annuity was a bona fide sale for adequate and full consideration, and also argues that Thelma continued to control these assets well after~ the transaction was complete. He next contends that Garza mangled Gary's estate plan by terminating the Family Trust, leading to the inclusion of that Trust's assets in Thelma's own taxable estate. . Finally, the Commissioner argues that section 2044 requires Thelma's estate to include the value of the property identified on Gary's estate tax return as a QTIP deduction. This is a fallback position--if all his other arguments fail, he is contending that at.least the approximately $6.5 million deduction that Gary's estate took on its return for QTIP property must be . matched by an inclusion of $6.5 million on Thelma's estate tax return. B. The Private Annuity and the FLPs We begin with the language of the Code. Section 2036(a) statest - 49 '- the gross include the value of all property to the SEC. 2036(a). General Rule.- The value of estate shall extent of any. interest thereid of which the decedent has at any time made a transfer in case of a bona fide sale for an adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth), by trust or otherwise, under.which he has retained for his life or for any period not ascertainable without reference to his death or for any period which.does not in fact end before his death-- (except (T) the possession or enjoyment of, or the property, the right to the income from, or (2) the right, either alone or in conjunction with any persbn, persons who shall possess{ or enjoy the property or the income therefrom. to designate~the (The italicized portions are the key phrases'for this case.) In Estate of Boùqard, we said section 2036 pulls transferred property back into a decedent's estate if: (1) The decedent -made an inter vivos transfèr of property·(no one doubts Thelma did this); (2) the decedent's transfer was not a bona fide sale for adequate and full consideration; and (3) the decedent kept an interest or right in the transferred property of the kind listed in section: 2036(a) which she did not give up before she died. Estate of Bongard, 124 T C. at 112. In other words, section 2036(a) has two exceptions to a general rule that includes in her eÀtate all inter vivos transfers of her property. The first exception excludes assets in a transfer if it is a- bona fide sale for adequate and full consideration. Hunting for the bona fides of a transfer is a _ 50 - question of motive--did Thelma have a legitimate and significant nontax reason, established by the record, for . transferring her property? Deciding whether a transfer was for adequate and full consideration is a question of value--did what Thelma give up roughly equal the value of what she received? Estate of Bongard, 124 T.C. at- 118." The second exception--applicable even if the transfer is an outright gift--takes the transferred property out of the estate if the decedent did not retain either the (1) possession, enjoyment or rights to the transferred property, or designate the persons who would possess or enjoy the transferred property. the right to (2) Kimbell v. United States, 371 F.3d 257, 261 (5th Cir. 2004). Section 2038 says: SEC. 2038(a). estate shall In General.-=The value of the gross include the value of all property-- (1) Transfers after June 22, 1936.--To the extent of any interest therein of which Kimbell phrases the test somewhat differently, holding that a sale is bona fide if the transferor "actually parted with her interest in the assets transferred and the [transferee] actually parted with the partnership interest in exchange;" .and a sale is for adequate and full consideration if issued exchange of assets * 371 F.3d at 265. instruction pointing us to judge bonä fides purely in terms of legal effectiveness. But that "a transaction motivated solely by tax planning with no business or corporate purpose is nothing more than a contrivance without substance that is rightly ignored." don't think, out different tests; but if they do, case fails both. * does not deplete the estate." Kimbell, look like an that Kimbell and Estate of Bongard stake the series of deals in this the Kimbell court also carefully noted If read in isolation, this might "the * therefore, Id. at 264. We 1 - 51 - in case of a bona fide sale for an the decedent has at any time made a transfer (except adequate and full .corisideration in money orü money's worth), by trust or otherwise, where the enjoyment thereof was subject at of his death to any chan exercise of a power exercisable) by the decedent alone or by the decedent (without regard to when o the decedent 'acquired such power) , amend, such power period ending on the date of death. from what source to alter, revoke, or termìnate, or. where any through the (in* Whatever capacity the date in conjunction with any other person is relinquished during the 3-year * the decedent ' s In Estate of Mirowski v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-74, we framed section 2038 as pulling »t ansferred property back into a decedent' s estate .if : (1) the decedent. made an: inter vivos transfer of property; (2) the decedenti's transfer was not a bona fide sale for adequate -and full con ideration; and (3) the decedent kept an interest or right in the transferred property of the kind. listed. in section .2038 (a) hich she did not give up before she died or which she relinqùished within the three-year . period ending on the date of her deáth. There are two sets of transfers that we need to consider-- transfers by Thelma of her own and t he Trusts' property in exchange for interests in the FLPs, and her exchange of the FLPs for the private annuity. We address the validity of each transaction separately because they have independent estate- - 52 - tax consequences. The FLPs, if valid,. may well- entitle the estate to value interests in them at a discount to the property they hold. The private annuity, if valid, would then remove a very large part of the FLPs' value from the estate altogether. We start at the end, looking first to see if the exchange of Thelma's interest in the.FLPs for the private annuity was bona fide and supported by fair and adequate consideration. Then we look at what interest she retained in the assets exchanged for the private annuity throughout the last year of her life. .And we do the same analysis for the transfers by Thelma (and the Trusts) in exchange for interests in the FLPs. 1. Was the Private Annuity Effective to Remove Assets from Thelma's Estate? a. Was the Transfer of Thelma's Interest in the FLPs for the Private Annuity Bona Fide and for Adequate and Full Consideration? Kimbell teaches that a court has to consider separately the bona fides of a transfer and whether it was supported by adequate and full consideration. Kimbell, 371 F.3d at 262. We begin by finding that the private annuity agreement was not bona fide, but The estate argues that an unpublished Fifth Circuit case, Estate of McLendon v. Commissioner, 77 F.3d 477, revg. T.C. Memo. 1993-459, stands for the proposition that bona fides of a private-annuity transaction are irrelevant to its validity. Estate of McLendon stands for no such thing--the opinion even quotes the section imposing the requirement of bona fides--but it decides the case on other grounds. (5th Cir. 1995), the - 53 was instead "a disguised gift o a ham transaction. Id. 'at 263 (citing Wheeler v. Únited States 1 6 F.3d '749, 767 (5th Cir. 1997).) . There are two key pieces o evidence The agreement that Garza drafted transferred Thelma s interest only to Michael ahd. Miáhelle. Thelma intended to limit David''St control ov'er the property sl e has giving to her. children, but wet specifically find that she di not intënd to .disinherit him. A more artful attórney might havè written a ýriväte' annuity that made David's 'rights and obligations clear withoutigiving him the ability to -deplete the· FLPs' assets. Garza assumed(cid:16)041,however, that Michael and>Michellerwould ignore what he hadedrafted and they had signed, and -instead ca^rry o t ( s they ultimately did) Thelma' s true intentions That÷rendëred the private annuity a sham nòthing more than a .substitute for a will leaving Thèlma s . estate in equal.shares to her childrën See, e.gr; Estate of Rector v.+ Commissioner, T. C. Memo. 2 07 367 (similar reasoning in a failed. FLP case) . The ,second key piece of evidenc is in wliat she. transferred In April. 2000, she transferred all of her interest in each FLP to two of her children, «including all tl e marketable securities and If . the problem with the pri ate annuity was merely one inadequate donsideration, we would inclåde only the' excess of of what was transferred over what Thelma received in her estate.. Sec.. 2043. Í3ut because4we .are fir2ing that? the FLPs were4in effect not until death, we include the entire value of transferred.for the private annuity in her estate. transferred, and Thelma retained an interest in them tlie property - 54 - cash in HI-1. Then in May -she received her first payment-- . . $40,000 of the cash and $40,000 of the securities that she'd just transferred to Michael and Michelle. In every subsequent month, she received back another $80, 000 of cash and securities that she had transferred. Thelma's children dïd not. use their own assets, let alone the income from the assets in the FLPs, to make these payments . They couldn' t have . Even collectively they could not afford to pay Thelma $80,000 a month. What. Thelma's children did instead was to hold the assets in the exact same form that they were in before the private annuity and then slowly transfer bits and pieces of them back to her,^ planning to divide what was left over (including a share for, David), after she died. Again, this makes the private annuity look much more like a testamentary substitute than a bona fide sale . To be bona fide, a transaction need not be between strangers. Estate of Bongard, 124 T.C. at 123. But there must be some objective proof that the transaction wouldn' t materially differ ·if the parties involved were negotiating at arms' length. Id . Any such f inding would be insupportable here . Thelma's transfer of her interest in Gary's estate to the children as part of the private annuity looks even· less like a bona fide sale. According to Garza, Thelma transferred her interest, in Gary's estate to the FLPs by first transferring the Marital and Family Trusts to herself, disregarding their - 55 formalities. He described the transaction at trial: "Well', she's transferring, .in the capacity of trustee, to herself in the capacity of recipient. It would beilike me doing a document to transfer money from one pocket to another pocket." +Garza went on. to clarify that she completed this transaction simultaneously with the transfer to herschildren without putting anything in writing. We're skeptical. The account statements reveal that the Marital and Family Trust assets, along with ~assets in an account in the name of Gary's estate, were all transferred into the HI-l partnership. These accounts remained separately titled during the private-annuity transaction andlthen until Thelma's death, even though Garza testified that Thelma distributed the Family and Marital Trust assets to hers.elf and sold them to her children.. (That's the estate's explanation for how Thelma obtained a 96.25-percent interest in the FLPs prior to the private-annuity transaction.") We next turn to whether Thelma ireceived adequate and full consideration when she transferred hbr assets for the private annuity. The key is whether what Thelma received is roughly equivalent to what she gave up. " [Ü]nless a transfer that depletes the transferor's estate is oined with a transfer that " Using the Family and Marital Trust assets in this way may have independent estate-tax consequences,.and we address these issues later. augments the estate by a commensurate (monetary) amount, there is . no "adequate and full consideration"'." Kimbell, 371 F.3d at 262 (quoting Wheeler v-. United States, 116 F.3d at 762). It is on . this point that the private annuity is most vulnerable._ We have already found that Garza conjured the partnership discounts out of the air. But even if those discounts were correct, Garza undervalued each FLP interest sold in the private annuity. On April 1, 2000, the balances of the accounts that eventually were transferred to HI-1 were: . Account* 4/1/00 Balance THIMA MT FT Total $4,263,636 $ $ 547,192 713,813 $5,524,641 . *Note that these are not even HI-1 accounts. transferring the assets out of until after the private annuity was completed. Given the many problems with these transactions, we are going to call this.one administrative delay and move on. these accounts into HI-1 accounts Chase did not begin . Garza, in his April 4 letter, valued HI-l's assets at $3,250,334 --the value from Gary's estate tax return. Garza put the same lack of effort into valuing HI-2. A Chase employee got a revised estimate of the value of the Hunt Oil phantom stock by giving Massman a call in February 2000. At that time Massman valued the phantom stock at $6.4 million, which - 57 is almost $1 million more than the 5 5 million value Garza took from Gary's estate tax return There is .no record evidence of a boomsor à bust in the Texas farm-and-ranch property market from Apri«l.'1999\to April 2000, but we are certain that na careful fattorriey would have .had, the properties in HI-3 reappraised before iricluding them in the private annuity.V ^To meet section 2036(a)'s requirement that the transfer was "for adequate. and full consideration in money or money' s wort-h, " Garza shoulde have etermined the f air market value of the properties at .the time of transfer so that the . value of the annuity received would be roughly equal to that of the property sold. Wheeler : 116 F.3d at 759 ("adequate and ful-1 consideration under the exceptiön»to section 2036(a) .requires only that the sale .not eplete the g oss estate") Recall that Garza just took the values off Gary's estate. tax return--va:lues which included properties: not even h ld by HI-3 We there f ore: hold on . the bas is öf , these f indings that the . transfer?of Thelma's FLP interests för the private annuity must be ignored, and the válue ðf the FLPN must be added to her estate unless she retained neither possessi¼n, nornenjoyment of, nor the right to incomesfrom the transferred property, nor the right to - designate the persons who would possess or enjoy that property. For a definition of. fair mar et value for jurposes of the estate and gift transfer taxes, see sec. 20.2031-1(b), Estate Tax Regs . , sec . 25 . 2512 -1, .Gi f t Tax Regs . - 58 - b. Did Thelma Retain a Prohibited.Interest the Property She Transferred to Her Children through the Private Annuity? in Because we find Thelma didn't receive adequate consideration in a bona fide sale for the transfer of her property for the annuity, her estate needs to show under section 2036(a) (1) that she did not keep possession or "enjoyment" of that property after the private annuity agreement. "[A] transferor retains the enjoyment of property if there is an express or implied agreement at the time of the transfer that the transferor will retain the present economic benefits of the property, even if the retained right is not legally enforceable." Estate of Reichardt v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 144, 151 (2000); see sec. 20.2036-1(a), Estate Tax Regs. For example, "the existence of formal legal structures which prevent de jure retention of benefits of the transferred property does not preclude an implicit retention of such benefits." Estate of Bongard, 124 T.C. at 129 (citing Estate of Thompson v. Commissioner, 382 F.3d 367, 375 (3d Cir. 2004). -Estate of McNichol v. Commissioner, 265 F.2d 667, 671 (3d Cir. 1959), affg. 29 T.C. 1179 (1958)). Now it is true that Thelma's relationship to the assets changed after the private annuity. She. didn't need to regularly dip into the FLPs once she began receiving $80,000 a month under the annuity. But as previously discussed, her children paid her with the very assets she supposedly sold to them. Her monthly - 59 - payments came directly from HI-1 TH MA, which was an FLP account, meaning that she retained a present economic benefit from her assets after she "sold" them. . Admit ting thàt Michaël and Michelle couldn't àfford to pay $80,000 per month to their mother, Garza testified that the pl n all along was for the children to "pay the payments from the assets in the private annuity that they purchased." See supra pp. 35, Tbl. 7. She also continued to make deposits into the various FLP,accounts, shifted assets between accounts, lånd otherwise treated them as if they were her own rather than àctually transferred to Michael and Michelle. See, e.g., sùpra p. 20, Tb1 1. After the.private annuity àgreement, Thelma nefer resigned ,as president of the LLCs and remained .a party to the.ifarm lleases. She also had ongoing signature äuthority over assetsiin HI-l's Cha'se accounts, which she exércised after the annuîty agreemerit At trial, Michelle testified tliat her mother withcírew m ney from HI--1 to pay her income taxes after she sold'theapa t ership interests to her children. Q A Q A Q All right . 2000 that your mother needed $65, 000? Do you recall on or around April 14 of . Yes. Okay. And she needed that to pay taxes . Correct? To pay estimated taxes, yes. And this money; Okay. this money out= öf a f amily liiñitèd- partnership account . Correct? this $65, OOO--she took A Q A the family limited This money was taken out of partnership shortly after the time we,did the private annuity transaction, because my mother's private annuity payments were not the first week of May. pay the taxes, and so this is what happened. biggest concern was getting the taxes paid. She needed the money to to kick in until The So there was a transfer taken out of a family limited partnership account to cover that then? Yes . Thelma also made it clear to Michael and Michelle, even after the private annuity was signed, that. they were to make sure that David got one-third of the property in the FLPs. Garza · testified that there was "no design to not include David; [Thelma] just didn't want him to have managerial signature rights . " And Michelle said at trial that although the private annuity didn't include David on paper, he was equally included with his two siblings. The Hurfords therefore treated David as a coowner in the FLPs after the annuity was in place. Michelle plainly stated, "IDavid] was a part of the private annuity agreement. He's a one-third owner." Michael and Michelle followed their mother's directions for the disposition of her property, even af ter she supposedly gave up any interest in it . Under section 2036 (a) (2) , we f ind this to be an exercise by Thelma of a "right, either alone or in conjunction with any other person, to designate the persons who shall possess or enjoy the property." We also find that it is the exercise of a power by Thelma altering or amending the tra11sfer of the property going to pay for the private annuity of the (cid:0)541ortdescribed in section 2038 (a) (1) . The consequence is, agãin, to pull the F'LPs back - into her gross estate. . 1 We therefore . find that; under sections 2036 and 2038,, Thelma retained an impermissible. interest in the assets she had tried to transfer to her childrennthrough the private annuity. All the assets "sold" to Michael and Michelle in the private annuity transaction must be included- iri Thelma' s -estate.1' , And that means we need to address the validity of the FLPs themselves and whether or not- the estat e may take discounts resulting from that form of ownership. 2 . Were the FLPs Valid? a. Was the Creation of the FLPs .Bona Fide and for Adequate ..and Full.. Consideration? As with the exchange of FLPs fo the private annuity, Thelma's exchange of property for interests in the FLPs must be bona fide and for adequate and full consideration if .it is to be effective at removing property from her taxable estate. Compared to private annuities, however, caselaw.on the subject of FLPs is a rich source of analogous fact patterns and helps us figure out " Because we' re includinc i Tfielma e estate the assets the that went e hold against Commissioner on his alternate assertion of a gift tax and associated negligence penalty in docket- number 23954-04. to pay for the private anifuity where on the spectrum of legitimate tax planning Thelma's estate lies. - 62 - Let-'s start with the FLPs' bona fides. We focus on Thelma's motivation for moving her property into the FLPs. One motive is obvious. Neither the Hurfords nor Garza are shÿ about admitting that they created the FLPs for the valuation discounts. At trial, Garza said he and the family "discussed discounts * * * more than a dozen times." But they are equally insistent that the FLPs had other purposes. Garza listed ten reasons on each of the FLPs' partnership agreements (numbering as in the ·original) . 1. provide resolution of any disputes which may arise among the Partners in order to preserve Partnership harmony and avoid the expense and problems of.litigation; 2. maintain and centralize control of Partnership Assets; 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. consolidate fractional Assets to achieve cost savings and to allow those Assets to be managed in an orderly manner; interests in Partnership increase Partnership wealth; continue the ownership of Partnership Assets and restrict the right of non-Partners to acquire interests in Partnership assets; provide protection to Partnership Assets from claims of members; future creditors against Partnership the transfer of a Partnership member's prevent interest in the Partnership as a result of a failed marriage, provide flexibility in business planning not available through trusts, corporations, or other busines.s entities; - 63 4 10." 11. facilitate the administration and redúce the òost associated with the disability or probate of estate of· Partnership members; and the . promote the Partnership' s knowledge of and communication about responsibilities, and benèfits of Partnership Assets. the management, We do not just look at a list of reasons, though. Thelma's nontax reason has to be a significarit factor motivating creation of the partnerships and not merely a theóretical justification, and we've observed before that taxpayers often disguise tax- avoidance motives with a rote recitation of nontax purposes. See Estate of Bongard, l'24 T. C. at 118. As the Third Circuit said in Estate of Thompson, 382 F.3d at 383 (quoting Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U. S. 465, 469 (1935) ) "Even when all the 'i' s are dotted and t's are crossed, ' a transaction motivated solely by tax planning and with 'no business or corporate purpose * * * is nothing more than a contrivance.'" s we have seen, Garza cZid not .make a rigorous effort to correc ly form the FLPs. He left many of the i's undotted and t's unci-ossed. But we won't disregard Thelma's transfers .to the FLPs because of his sloppiness. Instead we'll examine the evidence to see whether any of these nontax reasons was a significant factor in founding the FLPs. Estate of. Bongard, 124 T.Ò. at 118; Estate of. Harper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-121 Of the ten listed nontax purposes, the Hurfords rely mainly on asset protectiori and asset management. They claim that the - 64 - assets needed protection from the liabilities associated with the farm and ranch properties and from creditors. As for asset management, they.claim that the FLPs would consolidate the management of the cash and securities held by Thelma, the Marital Trust, and the Family Trust. We have found in other cases that similar claims about asset protection, without supporting evidence, were insufficient proof of a significant nontax purpose. See Estate of Bongard, 124 T.C. at 128 (FLP's credit-protection function already served by existing trusts); Estate of Korby v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-102, (failure to show FLP would protect assets from creditors) affd. 471 F.3d 848 (8th Cir. 2006); Estate of Korby v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-103, (FLP no greater protection than previous form of ownership) affd. 471 F.3d 848 (8th Cir. 2006); Estate of Rosen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-115 . And we find that placing the assets in FLPs provided'no greater protection than they had while held by the Family or Marital Trusts, or in Thelma's own name. Nor have the Hurfords convinced us that giving each child a small ownership interest reduced the risk of a creditor's reaching the assets. And we cannot find in this case any advantage in consolidated management that Thelma or the two trusts gained from the transfer, particularly because the partners' relationship to the assets didn't change after formation. Estate of Reichardt v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 152. While we have found that consolidated asset management can be a significant nontax purpose, 3Estate of Schutt v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-126, .we have also d nied that such a purpose is significant where a FLP is "just a ehicle for-changing the form of the investment in the assets, a mere casset container." Estate of Erickson v. .Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-1.07. We find that asset management and asset protection were not significant non- tax purposes in this case. What was.the purpose of the LPs then? We've already mentioned the ,Hurfords' desire _to discount the value of Thelma'.s property. But that finding's not enpugh.by itself;·. we have . developed in our, caselaw a longer list of, factors that, if present, will cincline _us to find that the. transfer of property to a FLP was not motivated by a legitimate and significant nontax reason. These factors include The taxpayer's financial ;dependence on distributions from. the partnership, Estate of Thompson v. Commissioner, T. C. Memo. 2002-246; Estate of Harper v. Commissioner, T. C. Memo. 2002-121; (cid:16)042 whether , the taxpayer comminglèd her ownt funds with partnership funds, Esi-ate of Reichardt, .114 T.·C. at 152 (cid:16)042 the taxpayer's delay or failure to transfer the property to the partnetship, Estate of Hillgren v. Commissionert T.C. vMemo. 2004-46; Estate of Rosen v. Commissioner, T. C. Memo. 2006-115; (cid:16)042 the taxpayer' s old age or j>oor health when the FLP was formed, Estate of Rosen, T. C. Memo. 2006-115; Estate of Korby> v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-103, Estate of Korby v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-102, affd. 471 F.3d 848 (8th Cir. 2006); and (cid:16)042 whether the FLP functioned as a business enterprise or otherwise engaged in any meaningful economic activity, Estate of Bongard, 124 T.C. at 126. Adherénce to partnership formalities is a theme underlying many of these factors. See Estate of Harper, T.C. Memo. 2002- 121. And the Hurfords' disregard for partnership formalities began early.. Thelma asked Chase just a few weeks after creating the FLPs to distribute $65,000 from HI-1 so she could make an estimated income tax payment, because she had transferred nearly. all of her liquid'assets to HI-1--strong evidence that she was financially dependent on distributions from the partnership. The HI-1 partnership made another mistake when it reported on Thelma's K-1 that she.received no disbursements in 2000, which is evidence that everyone was still treating HI-l's assets as Thelma's own. Thelma also commingled her own funds with the partnerships' until shortly before she died on February 19, 2001--and long after the Hurfords supposedly traded the FLPs for the private annuity. Chase transferred the proceeds from the sale of the Tyler house into the HI-1 THIMA account. .Thelma herself ' transferred the proceeds from her IRA to the HI-1 THIMA account in Decembèr .200û. See supra § .^22, Tbl 5. But neither the·Tyler house nor the IRA were meant to "l$e >artnership property The Hurfords also disregardeci artne ship; formalities by significantly dëlàying the transfer of the assets from Thelmà and the trusts to the FLPs . Mäny of ?HI l'-s assets remained in 1 Thelmai's and' the trusts' accounts «for seVeral months =after the FLPs were formed.( HI-2 had similar problems. Húnt Oil did not even acknowledge thàt HI-2 owned th phantom stock untiluJanuary 2001. While the. estate árgues that the official tránsfer date was March 22, 2000, it hasinot explained why it took so long to complete the. paperwork. Thë transfer of thë Dallas/Ellis County property tòr÷HI 3 was put- off3för two years, and we've already . recouñted hòw'disordered the other deeds were. The other underlying theme in our cäselaw is that a FLP needs to be a functioning business ör at lea'st have some meaningful economic. activity.* Estate of Bongard, 124 T.C. at 126. It's easy-enough to show thiá if Ja working business is . contributed to.a FLP See Kimbell, 371 F.3d at 267 (working interest in oil and gas0pi-operties) . We've also found that a FLP may have'meaningful economle activitý where the partnership furthers family investment goalsior wliere the#partners work together to jointly manäge familycinvestmënts. Estate of Mirowski, T . C. Memö. 200 8 -74 ; ~ Estate3 of . Schutt v. Commis sioner, T. C. Memo. 20054126. But where none(cid:16)040of the pärtners was involved in conducting the partnerships' business, it's unlikely that the transfer has a legitimate and significant nontax reason. See Estate of Thompson, 382 F.3d at 379. Look at the FLPs in.this case. .HI-l just held marketable . securities and cash. The Hurfords did not have even a minimal involvement in deciding which securities HI-l should own, or even whether it should buy or sell. Cf. (Estate of Schutt, T.C. Memo. 2005-126, where we said that while the mere holding of securities in an untraded portfolio is a negative factor, the record in that case reflected a significant nontax reason for creating the FLPs). All investment decisions were left to Chase,, and the same people at Chase made the decisions before and after the assets were moved to HI-1. HI-2 required even less of the Hurfords than HI-1. The only choice they could make concerning the Hunt Oil phantom stock was to hold it.or to cash out. The HI-3 partnership did hold real estate, but again, the partnership was not actively managing any of the farms or ranches. The three leases of those properties were all in place when HI-3 was formed and the Hurfords did nothing more than collect rent. There is. no evidence that the partners met to discuss family business or investment strategy, or even discuss the partnerships' profits or losses. This would have been difficult given the partnerships' mayfly-like life span: they were hatched and dispatched to the private-annuity transaction in a few weeks' time, and afterward served primarily asi a holding pen t o fund Thelma' s mánthly annuity payments. See supra p. 35, Tbl. 7. This leaves only t±he Hurfords drive for a di»scount f as a reason for creating the FLPs. And e do find that their purpose was nothing more than allowing the Hurfords to claim a discount when Thelma transferred her interes&'in them to her children for the private annuity; there was no nontax business or economic reason for them to exist. " Michelle s notes -fróm one of the initial meetings with Garza confirm tthis. She wrotè, ",have kids own .1 percent of everything to maxiniize discount advantages " i We thus find that Thelma's transfers to the FLPs were not" bona'fide sales. Even if the transfers were bona fideFwe would find thãt they were not for adequate and full consideration. ' The ge½eral test for deciding whether. trahsfefs to a partnership.are made for adequate and full consideration is to measure the value' received in the form-of a partnership* interest to see if it',i approximately equal to . the-property given up. Estate of Bóngard, 124 T.C. at 118; Kimbell, 371 F.3d at 262. But Kïmbell also . teaches more specifically that we should focus on three things: (1) whether the interests credited tÄ each of the partners was proportionate to the faik market value of cont-ributed . to the partnership, the assets .each partner (2) whether t he assets cohtrïbÚted by e ch partner to t'he partnership were properly - 70 - credited to the respective capital accounts of the partners, and (3) whether on termination or dissolution of the partnership .the partners were entitled to distributions from the partnership in amounts equal to their respective capital accounts. Id. at 266. We phrase our own test a bit differently: We look to see if "All partners in each partnership received interests proport-ion- ate to the fair market value of the assets they each transferred, and partnership legal formalities were respected." Estate of. - Bongard, 124 . T . C . at 117 . It is obvious that the.value of Thelma's interest in each FLP was worth less than the assets she contributed. For all three FLPs, Thelma' s and Gary' s estates20 each received a 48- - percent interest and the three children and the LLC each received a 1-percent interest gratis. But for HI-2 and HI-3, Thelma and Gary' s estate contributed 50 percent of the assets . What Thelma contributed to HI-1 was.even more disproportionately large compared to the interest she received. Thelma transferred almost $4 million of assets to HI-1 in April 2000. The Family and 20 Recall that the "Gary T. Hurford Trust" was given a 48- Instead, the Family and Marital Trusts created interest in the partnerships, but that no such trust percent actually existed. under Gary' s will, together with an account holding other assets from Gary's estate, were all contributed to the HI-l partnership, and eventually consolidated in the HI-1 THIMA account long after the private annuity transaction was completed. . See supra pp. 20-23. - 71 - Marital Trusts contributed a littleainder $1.2 million combined. Even assuming the Gary T. Hurford Trust existéd as a-Valid partner, these numbers shòw .that eaãh partner's interest in each of the FLPs did not refl'ect his or her or its coritribution. It is equally obvións 'that thefe was no pòoling of assets in the interest. of áreating true joint nownership or starting a new enterprise--Thelmavand Gary' s estate contributed everything. There was nö contribution from any öf the Hurford children either in money, property, or serva:ces, nor were their partnership interests reported as. gifts to them. And we've already found that the crediting ,of the partners' capital accounts was entirely fictional See. supra p. 39. Thelma's unilateral contribution supports an inference that. Only a desire-for tax sâvings. . . motivated the FLPs' formation. See Estate of Harper, T.C. Memo. 2002-121; cf . Estate of Harrison T. C. Memo. 1987-8 (where óther partners made significant contributions at formation, the . partnership served as a vehicle for a genuine pooling of interests) . For a FLP to 'work, the minority interest holders must at a minimum receive their interests either by gift or by. contributing their òwn assets or services . Section 1. 704 -1 (e ) (1) (iii) , Income Tax Regs . , provides that * interest in A donee or purchaser of a capital a partnership is not recogñized as a partner * bona fide transaction, not; a mere sham for * unless such interest:is acquired in a - 72 - tax avoidance or evasion purposes, and the donee or purchaser is the real owner of such interest. * * * This didn't happen here--the. Hurford children neither contributed their own property nor did Thelma report gifts to ·them of partnership interests. We have found no legal authority for Garza's position that partners can have a partnership interest with nothing more than a shuffle of paper. We therefore cannot recognize the Hurford children as true partners of the FLPs. We find that the only purpose the FLPs served in Garza's scheme was to allow the Hurfords to take a discount when Thelma transferred her assets for the private annuity a short time after the partnerships were formed. Therefore, we find that Thelma's transfers to the FLPs were not bona fide sales for adequate and full consideration. b. Did Thelma Retain the Possession or Enjoyment of, or the Right Property She Transferred to the FLPs in Violation of Section 2036(a)(1)? to the Income From, .the One question remains: Must we discount the value of those assets now included in Thelma's estate for lack of control and lack of marketability because they consist of interests in FLPs? The answer depends on whether we would've looked past the FLP to include the underlying assets in those FLPs in Thelma's estate absent the private annuity transaction. We return to the same analysis under section-.2036(a) (1) to find the answer. The key is whether there- was. an express or implied agreement at the "time of the itransfer to th'e FLPs that "Í'helma would keep the present economic benefits of the property, even if the retained right were not legally enfórceåble. Estate of Reichardt, 114 T.C. at 151 (citing references omitted). We have found 'implied agreements when (cid:16)042 (cid:16)042 The decedent used FLP ass ts to pay his personal expenses, e.g., Estate of Rosen, T.C. Memo. 2006-115; . (cid:16)042 (cid:16)042 the decedent assets to the FLP, e.g., Estate of Reichardt, 114 T. C. 144 (2000) ; and transferred nearly all of his the decedent's relationshipst-o the assets remained the same before and after the transfer, e.ý., Estate of Reichardt, 114 T.C. 144 (2000); Estate of Rosen, T. C. Memo. 2006-115. Garza' s plan plunges this case right into these precedents . The key proof of an implied agreement that Thelma would continue to be able to enjoy her property after she gave nearly all of it to the FLPs lies in evidence of what happened after the FLPs were formed--they were shuttled righti into the private annuity just weeks after they were created and beforë they were fully- funded with Thelmá' s assets . And Thelma received her very own assets back from her children as payments under the private-annuity agreement. Yet even though Thelma supposedly held^ an interest in the FLPs for only a few weeks, we've already recounted· how she impermissibly took distributions for her living expenses directly from the FLP accounts. And like many of the other cases where we - 74 - have found a retained interest, she needed that money because she had transferred nearly everything she owned into the FLPs. Her relationship to her assets didn't change after she transferred them to the FLP accounts--and remained the same even after the private.annuity sale. We therefore find that, after transferring the assets into. the FLPs, Thelma retained. an interest in them in violation of section 2036(a) (1). Well, almost. Because she transferred the FLP interests to her children through the private annuity--albeit in a transfer we have found problematic under section 2036(a) (1) itself--it is possible that she severed her ties to the FLP interests and didn't hold the impermissible retained interest at death. This i's where section 2035(a) comes into play. Section (cid:16)042 2035(a) says: SEC. 2035(a). Inclusion of Certain Property in Gross Estate.--If-- . (1) the decedent made a transfer (by in any trust or otherwise) of an interest property, or relinquished a power with respect period ending on the date of death, and to any property, during the 3-year the decedent's (2).the value of such property (or an interest therein) would have.been included in the decedent's gross estate under section 2036, 2037, 2038, or 2042 if such transferred interest or relinquished power had been retained by the decedent on the date of his death, include the value of any property (or the gross estate shall the value of - 75 interest therein) which would àhave been so included. Section 2035 (a) , together with u section 2036 (a) (1) ; thus also requires the estate; to include the .value''of assets Thelma. transferred to the FLPs, assuming she severed her connebtion to the FLPs wi'th the- sale. of her interests to the private annuity Of course, those assets are already included'because'of the problems with the private annuity. We hold, therefore, that the Hurfords cwere'not entitled to any discounts because of the FLPs when they calculated the amount of the monthly annuity payments, and so no discounts apply when detërmining the amount now includable in the estate . C. The Family and Marital .Trusts We have already described how tjhe Marital and Family Trust account statements show that Thelma moved those accounts. into the HI-1 partnership and then tried to shuttle them)to her children t hrough the private ànnuity. At trial, Garza described what happened to the two trusts as follows: Well, the accounts were transferred by the bank to the limited partnerships, so those , ' trusts became assets--the assets in the- trusts were transferred to.the limited partnerships. The limited partnership iriterests were sold to the private annuity. a distribution to Thelma, then a conveyance to in effect, you had See, The Commissioner also argues that section 2036 (a) (2) or section 2038 (a) (1) transferred into the FLPs because we've found section 2036(a) (1), section 2035 (a) , suf f ices . in conjunction with regulres incltision in the estate .of thes assets We need not address this argument, - 76 - the partnership, partnership interest to the kids, using the private annuity.. then a sale of the Later, when asked whether Thelma had an interest in the Marital and Family Trusts at death, Garza responded: "Well, the assets had been blown out to limited partnerships which had been sold, so I think there were trusts, but I don't think they--I think they were pretty hollow at that point." On this narrow point, we agree with Garza. The Family Trust was an-entirely legitimate part of Gary's estate plan, intended to use his unified credit of $650,000. Bisignano had carefully ensured that the terms of the Family Trust imposed an ascertainable standard on withdrawals--Thelma was limited to taking distributions for her. "health, education, support, or maintenance."· -Without this limitation, the Code would treat Thelma as if she had general power of appointment,22 and section 2041(a) (2) would include property subject to that power in . Thelma's gross estate. But the Hurfords cannot qualify for the , exception merely by stating it in the will and avoiding it in practice. Thelma exercised.a general power by "distributing" all of the Family Trust to herself and "selling" those assets in the 22 A general power of appointment is one that is "exercis- [her] estate, [her] creditors, or able in favor of the creditors of limited by the ascertainable standard (as was provided by Gary's Family Trust), however, appointment." "shall not be deemed a general power.of the decedent, [her] estate." Sec. 2041(b) (1). Any control Sec. 2041(b) (1) (A). private-annuity agreement,sand so they became subject. to her full control, andaindividual ownership. Since Thelma used all the . Family Trust'=s assets as her own in the private annuity we disregard the: fact that. they .at:one time could have been sheltered from any estate tax under the ,plan designed by Bisignano. There are many other-problems with the Marital Trust s assets independent of the FLP and private-annuity transactions. For example, though Gary's will passed all of the sproperty in his estate--except for the Family Trust's assets, his home, and his personal effects-4ìnto-the! Marital Trust,e only a small. portion of it.ended up inithe Marital Trust account with Chase or was otherwise titled,in. the Trust' s name : And Gary' s estate . took .a QTIP election- for approximately $6,500,000.. Were we to try to construct an alternate holding- for this part of Thelma's .estate, as the Commissioner urges, we- woulci quickly run into tricky questions of whether Thelma' s handling of - that property was a conversion and disposition. of the QTIP property under, sections 2511 and 2519.24 We'll leave those .questions for another.case, . Seò. 203 (a) bfoadly provi es t hat cludes ."all property, real or personal, whe ever situated." the gross estate intangible or intangible, 24 For example, does a transfer of QTIP^into a FLP termi- nate the clualified incomé interest that the Code requires Thelma to have from the·time she receives the interest.until death? Sec. 2044; sec. 25..2519-1(f), .Gift Tax Regs. . and hold instead that all the property that Garza moved from Thelma and the Trusts into the FLPs and the private annuity is included without discount in her gross estate under section 2031(a)'s broad language including in an estate "all property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, wherever situated." D. Gifts Thelma Made in February 2000 Thelma gave away $675,000 in taxable gifts in February 2000 and reported them on her gift tax return for that year (Form 709). The Code requires a taxpayer to include adjusted taxable gifts made during life in the computation of the tentative estate tax. Sec. 2001(b) (1). The Code then reduces that amount by the hypothetical tax on a taxpayer's post-1976 taxable gifts. Sec. 2001(b) (2). The effect is~ that the estate uses a higher marginal rate on the graduated rate schedule when computing the estate tax. The Commissioner argues that because Thelma's estate failed to report post-1976 adjusted taxable gifts on her estate tax return, the estate miscalculated the estate tax due. RNe agree with the Commissioner. II. Attorney's Fees The Commissioner challenges the estate's deduction of $45,000 for attorney's fees it claims it paid.Garza to administer Thelma's estate. Section 2053(a) (2) allows a deduction for. administration expenses, including attorney's fees. See sec. - 79 2 20.2053-3(a), Estate Tax Regs. It is the estate's burden to. substantiate the deduction. . See.Rule 142. The Commissioner agrees with the Hurfords that they paid Garza over $300,000, so we find it à bit hard to believe that they cannot show any of these fees were paid to administer Thelma's estate. Garza never complained that the-Hurfords failed to pay a bill.and we are quite sure that his work on Thelma's estate was not done pro bono. Still, the record is- thin. At trial., the Commissioner cross-examined the Hurfords and Garza, trying to figure out how much of Garza's fees were paid by the estate itself'. But Garza's bills were.as sloppy as his other paperwork, and no one was able to decipher them. The Commissioner asked Michelle'how much the estate's administration fee was: .Q. A. Do you know what were paid to Garza Staples? the total fees, estate=tax fees, Well, $45,000 were paid on behalf of my mother's estate. Q. · Were there«fees paid after the estäte tax return for your father's estate was filed that were paid to Garza Staples? A. Q. Yes. There. was $15,000 paid in the year 2000. And. is that amount claimed on the 706? sioner when the taxpayer has produced.credible evidence. ever, so Rule 142 applies. to the CommisHowlawyers withdrew their section 7491 motion, Section 7491 sh'ifts the burden of proof the Hurfords' A. No. - 80 - We find Michelle credible and, by a·bare preponderance of the evidence, find that the estate has proved its $45,000 deduction for attorney's fees. III. Negligence The estate contests the Commissioner's assertion of a negligence penalty under section 6662.. Before determining the estate's liability, we first have to decide whose negligence matters--Thelma's or her executor's. On this point, both parties agree that it is Michael's actions that we need to consider, . because the estate- is the taxpayer and Michael acted as the estate's fiduciary in his capacity as executor. We agree that this makes his conduct the focus of our analysis of whether a negligence penalty under section 6662 is justïfied. See Estate of Holland v. Commiss.ioner, T.C..Memo. 1997-302; see also, e.g., Bank of the West v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 462, 472 (1989) (imposing on estate's fiduciary a negligence-based penalty for failure to timely file); Thomas v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001- 225 (same). Since the facts of this case span a long period, we also need.to determine when to scrutinize Michael's conduct. On this, the Code and regulations direct us to use the time period encompassing the preparation of the return at issue, because the "term 'negligence' includes any failure to make a reasonable 81 attempt to comply with the proVisions of the .internal revenue laws or to exercise ordinary and réa'sonable care 'in the preparation of a tax return." Sec 1.6662-3(b) (1), Income Tax Regs. . (emphasis added) . We will thefefore corisider the tim during which Garza and Turner & Stone prepared9 Thelma's estate's tax returns . Both Garza and Turner & Stone represented the estate during this' time arid prepared *thë estate· táx~return that Michael signed . We cönsider Michael' s· knowledge sand observations of his attorney's and accountants' actions to decide whether the estate is liable The pènalty irl tlîïs case is triggered by a failure to "make a reasonable attémpt to comply" with internal revenué laws or to "exercise ordinary and reasonable care in»the prèparatiön of a tax re turn . " Sec . 1 6662 -3 (b) (1) , Incäme ' Tax Regs . Negligence also includes "failure by the taxþayer- tò keep adequate books and records. or to subst antiate items properly." Id. .Négligence is "strongly indicated"a where the taxpayep "fails to make a reasonable attempt to ascertain thé correctness of a deduction, . credit, or exclusion ón a réturn which would seem to a reasonable and,prudent person td be Mtoo góód to be true' under the circumstances." Id. If Michael had prepared the estate tax return himself, there is little doubt that we could fihd negligencé or art intentional - 82 - disregard of the tax rules. But Michael himself didn't prepare the returns. Instead, he hired Garza and Turner & Stone. The negligence penalty can be rebutted by a showing of reasonable cause and.good.faith. Sec. 6664 (c). And Michael points to his reliance on-professional advice for proof. We begin with the regulation, which somewhat unhelpfully states that reliance on professional advice is "reasonable cause and good faith if, under all the circumstances, such reliance was reasonable and the taxpayer acted in good faith." Sec. 1.6664- 4 (b) (1), Income Tax Regs. The caselaw more helpfully points to three factors to test whether the taxpayer--and remember that in this case, that means Michael--properly relied on professional advice. Neonatology Associates, P.A. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 43, 99 (2000), affd. 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2002). (cid:16)042- First, was the adviser.a competent professional who had sufficient expertise to justify reliance? (cid:16)042 Second, did the taxpayer provide necessary and accurate information to the adviser? (cid:16)042 Third, did the taxpayer actually rely in good faith on the adviser's judgment? Id. Both Garza and Turner & Stone were professionally licensed and would have appeared competent to a layman at the time they prepared the estate tax return. Reliance on even these professionals appears more rational in light of Bisignano's prlor recommendations. Although nowhere nearly as aggressive, and - 83 certainly more competently drafted, Bisignäno's advice contained strategies simïlar in name and purpose to Gárza s . Garza was thus not the first to ïntroduce~Midhael to the"concept of family limited partnerships, and "we do^not- find Ivlichael to have unreasonably relied on Garzá when pursuing tax-reduction strategies on¼behalf of his mother's estate. See Melnik v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-25. We find it more likely than not that .Michael was reasbnäble in nòt 4khowing that Garza's particular method of estatè.plänning was so far off the mark that it would lead him and his family into t-lieir present morass of litigation. We find little indicätion that Michael kriew or reasonably could have known>that- Garza' s schemes were not within the realm of legitimate estate =plarifiing: practices·'or 'that Gärza or Turner & Stone lacked sufficie;nt competence in estate tax law. Sec . 1. 6664 -4 (c) , Income Tax Regs . On the .second point, we find thát Michael provided both Garza and Turner & Stone> withk all the relëvant financial data needed to assess the correct level of×estate tax Set. 1.6664- 4 (c) (1) (i) , Income Tax Regs . It's the third point--did Michael reasonably and in good faith rely on Garza and Tui-ner & Stone s professional advïce-- that's the hardest t o address. Sec. 6664 (c). The regulations direct us to consider "all facts and circumstances" to decide whether Michael's i-eliance was reasonable ànd in good faith. Sec . 1. 6664-4 (c) (1) , Income Tax Regs . Michael is a child psychiatrist of considerable education and experience in his field, but we find that he is not sophisticated in tax and . business matters. See Malone v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005- 69; cf. Estate of Holland, T.C. Memo.. 1997-302 (imposing a negligence penalty on executor who was estate-planning and tax attorney) . Our review of Michelle's notes of meetings and calls with her brother, Garza, and the accountants consistently show a family that wanted to do all it could to reduce or eliminate the tax bill they faced, but also show constant questioning of their advisors about what was going on and whether it would work. = This makes µs fall back on United .States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241 (1985) , ÷where the Court noted: to discern . To require·the to seek a taxpayers are not competent Most error in the substantive advice of an accountant or attorney. taxpayer to challenge the attorney, "second opinion," or to try to monitor counsel on the provisions of nullify the very purpose of seeking the advice of a presumed expert * * "Ordinary business .care and prudence" do not demand such actions. the Code himself would in the first place. * Id. at 251; see also Chamberlain v. Commissioner, 66 F.3d 729, 733 (5th Cir. 1995), (quoting Boyle) affg. in part, revg. in part, T.C. Memo. 1994-228; Stanford v. Commissioner, 152 F.3d L 450, 461-62 (5th Cir. 1998), (discussïng the need for even an - 85 - intelligent person to obtain expert advice) affg. in part and vacating in part, 108 T. C. 344 (1997) . We consider it well established that a taxpayer has the right to minimize his tax _liability, and it was reasonable for Michael to have. relied on professionals in the arcane and complex field of estate-tax law. That his and his family's choice of advisers proved so unsuitable has led them to their present situation--unable to.enjoy fully2the estate built up by old Mr. Hurford, and seeking relief at court instead. But we do find that Michael' s reliance on the professionals he chose, .however unsuitable they turned out to be, was nevertheless under the circumstances done reasonably and in.good faith. We therefore impose no penalty for negligence or disregard of the Code. Decisions' will be entered under Rule 155. % en . .m S- .t¯