Naumoff v. Commissioner

1983 T.C. Memo. 435, 46 T.C.M. 852, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 364
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJuly 25, 1983
DocketDocket Nos. 12859-81, 12860-81.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1983 T.C. Memo. 435 (Naumoff v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Naumoff v. Commissioner, 1983 T.C. Memo. 435, 46 T.C.M. 852, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 364 (tax 1983).

Opinion

MARY HULL NAUMOFF, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent; ALEXANDER V. NAUMOFF, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Naumoff v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 12859-81, 12860-81.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1983-435; 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 364; 46 T.C.M. (CCH) 852; T.C.M. (RIA) 83435;
July 25, 1983.
Mitchell A. Naumoff, for the petitioners.
Grant A. Wolfe, and Jack E. Prestrud, for the respondent.

TIETJENS

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

TIETJENS, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in gift tax liability and additions to tax in these consolidated cases:

Addition to Tax
I.R.C. Sec.
Docket No.Taxable PeriodDeficiency6651(a)(1) 1
12859-81Quarter Ending 12/31/76$787.50$196.88
12860-81Quarter Ending 12/31/76787.50196.88

The issues for our decision are (1) whether petitioners' transfer to a trust for the benefit of certain minor beneficiaries constituted gifts of present interests in property so as to qualify for the exclusionary provisions of section 2503(b); (2) whether the gifts meet the requirements of section 2503(c) so as not to be considered future interests for the purposes of section 2503(b); and (3) whether the petitioners' failure to timely file*366 Federal gift tax returns for the taxable periods under consideration was due to willful neglect and not due to reasonable cause.

This case was fully stipulated pursuant to Rule 122, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The stipulation of facts and attached exhibits are incorporated herein by reference.

Mary Hull Naumoff and Alexander V. Naumoff (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) are husband and wife whose residence at the time the petitions herein were filed was Orrville, Ohio. Petitioners each filed a Federal gift tax return for the quarter ending December 31, 1976 on September 19, 1977.

Petitioners created an irrevocable trust for the benefit of eleven named beneficiaries on December 15, 1976. The trust was funded with 17 shares of common stock of M & C Mobile Village and Sales, Inc., valued at $121,380.

At the time the trust was created, five of the eleven beneficiaries designated in the trust agreement were under the age of 21 years. The trust instrument provided, in pertinent part:

A. * * * The Trustees shall pay to the beneficiaries * * * or apply on their behalf such income from the Trust and so much of the principal thereof as may be necessary*367 for the education, comfort and support of the beneficiaries, and shall accumulate for the beneficiaries all income not so needed. The Trust Estate shall be deemed vested absolutely in said beneficiaries and shall be their property, but the Trustees are authorized and directed to hold said Estate unless the Trust be prior terminated, as hereinafter provided.

B. This Trust shall terminate for the benefit of each beneficiary when the said beneficiary shall have reached the age of twenty-one (21) years or as hereinafter provided, and a proportioned, equal share of the corpus and remainder of the Turst Estate in the hands of the Trustees, both principal and interest, including all accumulated income, shall pass to and be delivered, transferred, conveyed and assigned to the said beneficiary provided, however, that the said beneficiary give notice to the Trustees in writing within thirty (30) days after reaching said twenty-first (21st) birthday of the intention to terminate and demand for his share of the property, and in the event the beneficiary does not give notice as aforesaid, this Trust shall remain in full force and effect until the beneficiary reaches twenty-five (25) years*368 of age or until such time as the beneficiary shall give notice to the Trustees in writing, of said beneficiary's intention to terminate this Trust with respect to said beneficiary's share of the Trust principal and income and demand the property, at which time the Trustees will release control over said property hereinabove described, which shall pass to and be delivered, transferred, conveyed and assigned to said beneficiary.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fondren v. Commissioner
324 U.S. 18 (Supreme Court, 1945)
Commissioner v. Disston
325 U.S. 442 (Supreme Court, 1945)
Kieckhefer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
189 F.2d 118 (Seventh Circuit, 1951)
Stifel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
197 F.2d 107 (Second Circuit, 1952)
Gilmore v Commissioner of Internal Revenue
213 F.2d 520 (Sixth Circuit, 1954)
Kieckhefer v. Commissioner
15 T.C. 111 (U.S. Tax Court, 1950)
Gilmore v. Commissioner
20 T.C. 579 (U.S. Tax Court, 1953)
Perkins v. Commissioner
27 T.C. 601 (U.S. Tax Court, 1956)
Heidrich v. Commissioner
55 T.C. 746 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Estate of Kolker v. Commissioner
80 T.C. No. 58 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1983 T.C. Memo. 435, 46 T.C.M. 852, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naumoff-v-commissioner-tax-1983.