A parent opens a brokerage account in their name and their adult child’s name. The parent deposits stock worth thousands of dollars into the account. The stock skyrockets in value and the parent sells it for millions. Years later, after the parent’s death, the child claims half the stock was a gift. The estate argues only half the capital gains should be taxed to the deceased parent.
This scenario plays out more often than one might expect. Parents frequently add children’s names to bank accounts and investment accounts for convenience or estate planning purposes. The parent may intend to give the child access to funds in an emergency or simply want to avoid probate. However, the legal consequences of joint account ownership often surprise families when tax time arrives or disputes emerge after death.
Does placing property in a joint account with a child automatically create a gift of half the property? Or does the parent retain full ownership until they explicitly transfer control? The case of Estate of Frances Elaine Freedman v. Commissioner, 93 T.C.M. 1007 (T.C. 2007), provides a detailed examination of this question and illustrates how Texas law determines ownership of joint accounts for federal tax purposes.
Facts & Procedural History
Frances Elaine Freedman acquired 525,000 shares of eConnect stock in September 1999. The stock initially traded as a penny stock at under 30 cents per share. In January 2000, the decedent opened a joint brokerage account at Valdes & Moreno in her name and the name of her son. The account opening documents designated the account as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. The agreements gave both parties equal authority to give binding instructions regarding buying, selling, or requesting distributions. The account was subject to Texas law under an express choice of law provision.
All personal information used to open the account belonged to the decedent, including her Social Security number, address, and telephone number. The son contributed no property or funds to the account at its inception or thereafter. On January 11, 2000, the decedent funded the account by signing over her certificate for 525,000 shares of eConnect. The stock was still trading between 25 and 50 cents per share.
Between January 24 and March 8, 2000, the decedent placed four sell orders with the broker. In total, she sold 257,500 shares for net proceeds after commissions of $2,974,392.38. After each sale, the decedent personally submitted requests to transfer funds out of the joint account. On March 16, she requested a wire transfer of $2,909,593.56 to AmSouth Bank in Florida for her own benefit. This final transfer removed the entire cash balance from the joint account.
Some portion of the proceeds eventually transferred to accounts at Wells Fargo in the decedent’s name alone. During 2000, the decedent used proceeds from the stock sales to purchase a residence in Simi Valley, California for approximately $645,000. The deed was taken in both names as joint tenants. The decedent and son lived together until early 2002. Before the home was sold, the son executed a quitclaim deed to the decedent of any interest he held in the property.
First Southwest Company issued a Form 1099 for 2000 showing the decedent’s Social Security number and total gross proceeds from the eConnect sales. The decedent filed a tax return reporting the sale of all 257,500 shares with long-term capital gain of $2,974,393. She signed and filed the return in April 2001. She did not file a gift tax return for 2000. The son filed his own 2000 tax return reporting no capital gain or loss.
The decedent died on June 17, 2003. Her daughter was appointed personal representative in the probate case. The estate’s CPA concluded the 2000 reporting should be altered because the gain should have been split evenly between the two joint account holders. The IRS disagreed and issued a notice of deficiency. The estate filed an amended return allocating only half the proceeds to the decedent. The IRS denied the refund request. The estate filed a petition with the Tax Court.
The Federal Tax Treatment of Property Ownership
Federal tax law imposes tax on the taxable income of every individual. Gross income means “all income from whatever source derived” under Internal Revenue Code Section 61(a). This encompasses all undeniable accessions to wealth that are clearly realized and over which taxpayers have complete dominion. Gains derived from dealings in property are expressly enumerated as falling within gross income.
The foundational principle is that gains derived from property are taxable to the owner of the property. This rule appears straightforward, but determining who owns property requires looking beyond federal tax law. State law creates legal rights and property interests. Federal law then determines how those state-created rights and interests shall be taxed. This division of responsibility between state and federal law governs the analysis in joint account cases.
When someone sells stock, the question of who must pay tax on the gain depends first on who owned the stock under applicable state law. If state law treats the seller as the sole owner despite another person’s name appearing on the account, then the seller alone owes tax on the entire gain. Conversely, if state law treats both account holders as co-owners of the property, then each would be taxed on their proportionate share of the gain.
The parties in Estate of Freedman agreed that Texas law governed the ownership question. The account agreements contained an express choice of law provision stating that Texas law would govern the agreement and its enforcement. This provision controlled because the account was cleared and carried through First Southwest Company in Texas.
Texas Law on Joint Account Ownership During Lifetime
Texas adopted provisions derived from Article VI of the Uniform Probate Code in 1979 governing multiple-party accounts. These provisions are now codified in the Texas Estates Code. The statutory scheme expressly places accounts at brokerage firms within its scope.
A “multiple-party account” includes a “joint account.” A “joint account” means an account payable on request to one or more of two or more parties whether or not there is a right of survivorship. The Valdes & Moreno account clearly qualified as a joint account under these definitions.
Texas Estates Code Section 113.004 clarifies the reach of the ownership provisions. It states that provisions concerning beneficial ownership as between parties to multiple-party accounts are relevant only to controversies between these persons and their creditors and other successors. These provisions have no bearing on the power of withdrawal as determined by the terms of account contracts.
This distinction matters considerably. The account agreements gave both the decedent and her son equal contractual authority to withdraw funds or give instructions to the broker. That contractual power of withdrawal is separate from the question of beneficial ownership. A person might have authority under the account agreement to withdraw all funds, but that does not mean they beneficially own all funds. Beneficial ownership determines who must pay tax on income generated by the account.
Texas Estates Code Section 113.101 addresses ownership during lifetime. It provides: “A joint account belongs, during the lifetime of all parties, to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sums on deposit, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent.”
This provision establishes a straightforward rule with an exception. The default rule is that each party owns the account in proportion to what they contributed. If one party deposits $100,000 and the other deposits nothing, the first party owns 100 percent of the account. The exception allows a different result if clear and convincing evidence shows the parties intended different ownership percentages.
What “Different Intent” Means Under Texas Law
The estate in Freedman argued that the decedent clearly intended to gift half of the eConnect stock to her son by placing it in the joint account. The IRS argued that the decedent contributed all property to the account and did not intend to make a gift. Understanding what the exception requires demands examining how Texas courts interpret “different intent.”
Texas courts look to the Uniform Probate Code and its accompanying comments when construing provisions of the Texas Estates Code derived from that uniform act. The language of Texas Estates Code Section 113.101 is identical to Uniform Probate Code Section 6-103(a) from the 1969 Act. The official comment to the uniform provision explains the underlying assumption.
The comment states that a person who deposits funds in a multiple-party account normally does not intend to make an irrevocable gift of all or any part of the funds. Rather, they usually intend no present change of beneficial ownership. The assumption may be disproved by proof that a gift was intended. The comment emphasizes that the section describes ownership while original parties are alive.
The comment makes clear that the “different intent” contemplated by the exception is an intent to make a gift. The necessary showing required to override the rule of ownership in proportion to contributions is clear and convincing proof that a gift was intended. The comment also drives home that since opening a joint account and depositing assets are inherent in any scenario covered by the statute, these facts alone play no role in establishing the requisite intent to meet the exception.
Under Texas law, clear and convincing evidence demands that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the fact-finder a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. This burden falls on the party claiming that a gift has been made. The standard is substantially higher than the preponderance of evidence standard used in most civil cases.
Why Account Documents Alone Cannot Prove Donative Intent
The estate in Freedman cited numerous circumstances to show the decedent intended to make a gift to her son. Understanding why the court rejected these arguments illuminates what evidence actually matters in proving donative intent.
The estate pointed to documents involved in opening and administering the Valdes & Moreno account. These included the assignment of the stock certificate, the customer agreement, the joint account agreement, monthly statements, sale confirmation statements, the Form 1099, and a 2003 check issued to both parties. The estate argued these documents were probative because they reflected both names as parties to the account and gave both equal rights and authority.
The court rejected this evidence as insufficient. These documents might be highly probative if the aim were to establish existence of a joint account. However, that point was undisputed. The inquiry was already taking place under the rubric of Texas Estates Code Section 113.101. Because that provision operates solely in the context of joint accounts, documentation showing accounts titled in multiple names is presumed and inherent in all cases. The clear and convincing evidence referenced in the exception must demand something more.
This reasoning applies to any joint account case. The mere fact that an account bears two names and gives both parties contractual authority to conduct transactions cannot establish donative intent. Otherwise, every joint account would automatically constitute a gift to the non-contributing party. The statute would become meaningless because the exception would swallow the rule.
Consider how this works in practice. A mother adds her daughter’s name to a checking account so the daughter can pay bills if the mother becomes ill. The account agreement gives both equal authority to write checks and withdraw funds. The daughter never deposits money into the account. Under the estate’s theory in Freedman, the mere existence of these account documents would prove the mother intended to give half the account balance to the daughter. Texas law rejects this result.
What Actually Demonstrates Donative Intent
The court in Freedman examined the pattern of conduct surrounding the account to determine actual intent. This analysis focused on who exercised control over the property and what happened to the funds after they were generated.
The most salient fact was that within days of each sale of eConnect shares, the decedent wired the proceeds out of the joint account. The March 16, 2000 transfer of $2,909,593.56 into a personal account at AmSouth Bank was particularly revealing. This transfer removed substantially all cash from the joint account and placed it in an account held in the decedent’s name alone. None of the investment accounts in which the proceeds subsequently came to rest was any type of joint account over which the son possessed authority.
These actions were nearly impossible to reconcile with the idea that shares had been given to the son three months earlier. If the decedent truly believed she had given half the stock to her son in January, why would she transfer 100 percent of the March sales proceeds into her own individual account? A person who receives property as a gift owns that property. When it generates income or appreciation, that benefit belongs to the owner. The decedent’s conduct showed she believed all the proceeds belonged to her.
The court also examined specific transactions that occurred after the stock sales. The decedent used proceeds to purchase a California residence. Although the deed was taken in both names as joint tenants, the son later executed a quitclaim deed back to the decedent. The decedent gave various limited gifts to her son including funds for his business venture and a vehicle. These transactions occurred after the decedent had already transferred the stock sale proceeds into her own accounts.
The pattern revealed an intent to share wealth by giving specific, limited gifts at times subsequent to the windfall. This differed from a scenario where ownership of half the wealth was already established because the son had received the underlying stock before it was sold. When someone owns property, they do not need to receive gifts from the seller after the sale. They already have their share.
The court found the son’s testimony about his role in managing the account lacked credibility. While he may have researched the stock and made recommendations, the documentary record showed that any time an actual sales call or request to transfer funds was made, the decedent’s personal action formally initiated the transaction. Shared excitement and casual use of plural pronouns could not substitute for the complete absence of documentary evidence showing the son making even one order with respect to the account.
The Significance of Tax Reporting by Both Parties
The court found contemporaneous tax reporting by both the decedent and her son highly probative of their understanding about ownership. Positions taken in a tax return may be treated as admissions. They may be disavowed only by cogent proof that they are incorrect.
On her original 2000 income tax return, the decedent reported selling all 257,500 shares. She did not file a gift tax return for 2000. Consistent with his mother’s treatment, the son did not report any sale of shares on his 2000 return. This reporting reflected that both parties understood the decedent owned all the stock when it was sold.
The change in position to that reflected in the decedent’s amended return occurred only after her death. At that point, she could no longer speak to her intentions regarding the stock and the account. The decedent’s own representations on a return she reviewed and signed were decidedly more persuasive than recharacterizations by others nearly three years later. Those recharacterizations came after the IRS asserted additional tax due.
If the decedent truly believed she had given half the stock to her son, she should have filed a gift tax return reporting the transfer. The failure to file such a return suggested she did not view the account opening as a completed gift. Similarly, the son’s failure to report any gain on his return was consistent with his not believing he owned any of the stock.
The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish clear and convincing proof of an intent to make a gift upon establishing and funding the joint account. The general rule therefore applied to accord ownership of the eConnect stock in proportion to the respective contributions of the parties. The decedent owned all the shares at the time of the sales. She alone was taxable on the gain generated by those sales.
The Takeaway
The Estate of Freedman decision establishes that simply placing property in a joint account does not create a gift to the other account holder under Texas law. The person who contributes property to the account retains ownership unless clear and convincing evidence shows they intended to make a gift. Opening the account and adding another person’s name to the paperwork do not themselves prove donative intent because these facts are inherent in every joint account situation. Evidence of donative intent must come from conduct showing the depositor genuinely intended to transfer beneficial ownership rather than merely giving the other person access or authority.
Do you need help with a probate matter in Austin or the surrounding area? We are Austin probate attorneys. We help clients navigate the probate process. Call today for a free confidential consultation, 512-273-7444.
Our Austin Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with probate administrations and tax advice related to estates. Affordable rates, fixed fees, and payment plans are available. We provide step-by-step instructions, guidance, checklists, and more for completing the probate process. We have years of combined experience we can use to support and guide you with probate and estate matters. Call us today for a FREE attorney consultation.
Disclaimer
The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The information presented may not apply to your situation and should not be acted upon without consulting a qualified probate attorney. We encourage you to seek the advice of a competent attorney with any legal questions you may have.
