Wills Trusts & Estates keyed to Dukeminier
Estate of Cristofani v. Commissioner
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
. The decedent had five grandchildren. Two of them were the children of Frank Cristofani, the decedent’s son. The remaining three children were the children of Lillian Dawson, her other child. The decedent created an irrevocable Children’s trust I (Children’s Trust) and Cristonfani and Dawson were the trustees. The Children’s Trust identified the decedent’s children as “primary beneficiaries” and the decedent’s grandchildren were considered as “beneficiaries of secondary importance.” Cristonfani and Dawson could withdraw an amount not to exceed the amount specified for the gift tax exclusion under section 2503(b) under the Children’s Trust. During a 15 day period following a contribution to the Children’s Trust, each of the grandchildren possessed same right of withdrawal as described above regarding the withdrawal rights of Frank Cristofani and Lillian Dawson. The rights of the grandchildren vested when their respective parent predeceased the decedent or failed to survive the decedent by more than 120 days. Approximately six months after Maria Cristofani created the trust, she funded it with an undivided 33 percent interest in a Spring Street property. The value of the property transferred was $70,000. The decedent made the exact same disposition of another 333 percent of the property for the same value in 1985. Maria Cristofani claimed seven annual exclusions of $10,000 each under section 2503(b) for each year 1984 and 1985. The exclusions were claimed with respect to Maria Cristofani’s grandchildren and her children. The Respondent, the tax court, allowed the exclusions with respect to Maria Cristofani’s children but disallowed them with respect to her grandchildren for the years 1984 and 1985. The Respondent claimed that exlusios0n which Maria Cristofani claimed with respect to her grandchildren were not present transfers of property. The respondent accordingly increased the petitioner’s adjustable tax gifts in the amount of $100,000. At the time of the transfers, all of the grandchildren were minors
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.