Full opinion text
GARWOOD, Circuit Judge: This ease involves the determination of the federal estate tax due from the estate of Elmore K. Melton, Jr. (Melton). On July 13, 1984, Melton, then age sixty, sold to his two adopted sons, John Wheeler and David Wheeler, the remainder interest in his ranch located in Bexar County, Texas. Melton retained a life estate in the ranch and used the actuarial tables set forth in the Treasury Regulations to determine the price to be paid by the Wheelers for the remainder interest. On May 25, 1991, Melton, then age sixty-seven, died. Melton’s federal estate tax return did not include any value for the ranch. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a notice of deficiency, claiming that the sale of the remainder interest in the ranch to the Wheelers for its actuarial value did not constitute adequate and full consideration, and that accordingly the fair market value of the full fee simple interest in the ranch, less the consideration paid by the sons, should have been included in Melton’s gross estate. The court below agreed and, following a line of cases stating that the sale of a remainder interest for less than the value of the full fee simple interest in the property does not constitute adequate consideration for the purposes of section2036(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, determined that Melton’s estate had been properly assessed an additional $320,831 in federal estate tax. We reverse. Facts and Proceedings Below I. In the mid-1970s, Melton, who was bom April 16, 1924, and never married, adopted two children, John Wheeler (John), who was born in 1956, and David Wheeler (David), who was bom in 1958. Following their graduation from college, both sons-John in 1979, David in 1981-were employed by The Melton Company, a corporation of which Melton was then sole shareholder, president, arid chairman of the board. From 1983 until his death in 1991, Melton engaged in a series of financial transactions with his sons that the government contends had significant estate tax ramifications. On May 19; 1983, Melton gave John and David each 195 shares of The Melton Company common stock, representing approximately 16.2 percent of the 1204 shares outstanding. On June 30, 1984, The Melton Company, pursuant to a recapitalization plan, converted each share of existing common stock into one share of voting stock and three shares of nonvoting stock, denominated Class A and Class B shares respectively. On July 13, 1984, some three months after he turned 60, Melton gave John and David each 223 shares of Class B stock of The Melton Company. Also on July 13, 1984, Melton executed a warranty deed conveying to John and David his 376-acre ranch, located in Bexar County, Texas. The deed reserved to Melton a life estate in the ranch. For many years prior to the sale, and until the time of his death, Melton used the ranch as his personal residence. John and David paid for the remainder interest with a personal liability real estate lien note in the amount of $337,790.18, secured by a vendor’s lien expressly retained in the deed and additionally by a deed of trust on the ranch. ■ The deed and deed of trust were promptly recorded. The purchase price for the remainder interest in the ranch was determined by multiplying the sum of the appraised fair market value of the ranch’s fee simple interest, $1,314,200, plus $10,000, by 0.25509, the factor set forth in the appropriate actuarial table in the Treasury Regulations for valuing future interests in property where the measuring life was that of a person of Melton’s age. See Treas. Reg. §, 25.2512-5(A). On February 12, 1985, the initial note, which bore interest at the rate of 7 percent and called for annual payments of at least $10,000 principal plus accrued interest, was revised to provide for monthly payments of $833.33 principal plus accrued interest, which remained at 7 percent. On that date, John and David paid the amount due under the revised terms. On October 18, 1985, Melton gave John and David each an additional 344 shares of Class B stock of The Melton Company. In December 1986, Melton gave $10,000 each to John and David by forgiving that amount of each son’s indebtedness under the note. On December 23, 1986, John and David received bonuses from The Melton Company of $50,000 and $55,000, respectively. Each son used $35,000 of his bonus to reduce the principal owed on the note to Melton. John and David each paid income taxes on their bonus. On December 29, 1986, Melton assigned the note to The Melton Company in partial payment of an existing debt that he owed the company. One year later, on December 24, 1987, Melton gave John and David each forty more shares of Class B stock of The Melton Company. On December 26, 1987, Melton gave each son another 106 shares of Class A stock and 299 shares of Class B stock. On January 28, 1988, both John and David received a 1987 year-end bonus of $250,000 from The Melton Company. They each paid income taxes on their bonus. On January 29, 1988, Melton sold to John and David each 280 shares of Class B stock of The Melton Company. John and David paid the remaining balance due on the note the same day. Throughout the course of the indebtedness under the note, John and David had continued to make monthly payments. The Melton Company continued to make annual, year-end bonuses to both John and David long after the note was retired. On December 25, 1989, nearly two years after the note had been paid in full, Melton gave John and David each thirty-five shares of Class B stock of The Melton Company. As a result of these gifts, on December 26, 1989, Melton owned fifty percent of the Class A stock of The Melton Company and no Class B stock. John and David each owned twenty-five percent of the Class A stock and fifty percent of the Class B stock. The ownership structure remained fixed at these levels until Melton’s death. Melton died testate on May 25,1991, at the age of sixty-seven, more than six years after the sale of the remainder interest to the Wheelers and more than three years after the note had been paid in full. The cause of death was heart failure. Melton had suffered from coronary artery disease and arteriosclerosis for approximately ten years. The undisputed evidence, however, was that Melton’s death was not (and was not thought to be) imminent in July 1984 when he sold the remainder interest to the Wheelers (nor is there any evidence that it was ever imminent before 1991). Melton’s will and codicil were admitted to probate and John was appointed the independent executor of the estate. John timely filed an estate tax return reporting a gross estate of $581,106, and an estate tax liability of $199,936 (which was tendered with the return). The gross estate, as reported on the return, did not include any amount for the ranch, thus reflecting the estate’s position that Melton had no interest in the ranch at his death. The IRS subsequently issued its “Report of Estate Tax Examination Changes,” taking the position that, under sections 2086(a) and 2043(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC or Code), the Melton estate should have included in the gross estate the difference between the date-of-death value of the ranch, $1,074,200, and the consideration paid by the sons for the remainder interest, $337,790.18 (treated by the IRS as $338,000). Accordingly, the IRS determined that an additional $736,200 ($1,074,200 less $338,000) should have been included in the gross estate for the ranch. As a result, the IRS issued an estate tax notice of deficiency in the amount of $320,831. The Melton estate paid the asserted deficiency and filed a timely claim for refund. When the IRS did not allow the refund within the prescribed six months, the Melton estate commenced the instant action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, seeking a refund of the additional estate tax assessed and paid, plus interest. II. Before the district court, the parties stipulated to the facts as set forth above and agreed to resolution of the issues by cross-motions for summary judgment. In its motion, the government contended that the series of transactions between Melton and his sons were part of a testamentary plan designed to shield most of the estate from taxation. The Melton estate argued that a sale of a remainder interest for its actuarial value comes -within the “bona fide sale for an adequate and full consideration” exception to section 2036(a) and therefore the ranch was properly excluded from the gross estate. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the government’s motion be granted. The district court, without any discussion or explanation, overruled the estate’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report, accepted, approved, and adopted all the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions, and entered judgment for the government. The magistrate judge, observing that the “classic case” envisioned by section 2036(a) was “a purported gift with a retained life estate in the donor,” rejected the Melton estate’s contention that the sale of the remainder interest in the ranch for its actuarial value constituted a “bona fide sale for adequate and full consideration,” and opined that the date-of-death value of the ranch-less the consideration paid by the sons-must be included in the gross estate. The magistrate judge’s conclusion was premised on two principal bases. First, the magistrate judge found persuasive the United States Claims Court’s decision in Gradow v. United States, 11 Cl.Ct. 808 (1987), aff'd, 897 F.2d 516 (Fed. Cir.1990), and embraced its determination that, for the purposes of section 2036(a), the value received by the decedent must be compared to.the value of the entire underlying property rather than the present value of the future interest transferred. Second, the magistrate judge concluded that the sale of the remainder interest was not a “bona fide sale” as envisioned by the exception to section 2036(a), noting that “[ajlthough death was not imminent in 1984, it is reasonable to assume that Melton contemplated his own death and the disposition of his estate at the time of the transfer of his homestead to his sons in July, 1984.” Accordingly, the magistrate judge, viewing the evidence “as a whole,” concluded that the series of transactions between Melton and his sons constituted “a single transaction intended to avoid the payment of estate taxes,” tainting the sale of the remainder interest in the ranch and precluding the transaction from being “bona fide” under section 2036(a). Discussion I. The case below was decided on cross-motions for summary judgment and on stipulated facts. A grant of summary judgment is subject to de novo review. Browning v. City of Odessa, 990 F.2d 842, 844 (5th Cir.1993). Where, as here, the essential facts are not in dispute, our review is limited to whether the government or the Melton estate is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Aries Marine Corp., 932 F.2d 442, 444 (5th Cir.1991). ' Central to this case is section 2036(a) of the Code, which provides: “The value of the gross estate shall include the value of all property to the extent of any interest therein of which the decedent has at any time made a transfer (iexcept in case of a bona fide sale for an adequate and fall 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- (1) the possession or enjoyment of, or the right to the income from, the property, or (2) the right, either alone or in conjunction with any person, to designate the persons who shall possess or enjoy the property or the income therefrom.” (Emphasis added). The estate concedes that the fee simple value of the ranch would have to have been brought back into the estate had the remainder been transferred to the Wheelers without consideration or for an inadequate consideration. However, the Wheelers paid Melton for the remainder interest transferred an amount which the government concedes is equal to (indeed slightly in excess of) the then fair market value of the fee simple interest in the ranch multiplied by the fraction listed in the Treasury Regulations for valuing a remainder following an estate for the life of a person of Melton’s age. See 26 C.F.R. § 25.2512-5(A). The estate contends that accordingly under the parenthetical clause of section 2036(a) the ranch is not brought back into the estate, as Melton was paid full value for the transferred remainder. Indeed, there is no evidence to the contrary. The government, however, contends that because Melton was paid for the remainder interest an amount indisputably less than the value of the full fee interest, that therefore the parenthetical clause of section 2036(a) cannot apply, and hence the ranch must be brought back into the estate. This case thus ultimately turns on whether the phrase “adequate and full consideration” as used in the italicized parenthetical clause of section 2036(a) is to be applied in reference to the value of the remainder interest transferred, as the estate contends, or in reference to the value of the full fee simple interest which the transferor had immediately before the transfer, as the government contends. We note that for this purpose the language of section 2036(a) makes no distinction between transfers of remainders following retained life estates and transfers of remainders following retained estates for a specified term of years (or other period ascertainable without reference to the transfer- or’s death) where the transferor dies before the end of the term. Similarly, no such distinction is made between transfers to natural objects of the transferor’s bounty and transfers to those who are strangers to the transferor. That the proper construction of section 2036(a)’s “adequate and full consideration” has presented taxpayers, the IRS, and the courts with such persistent conceptual difficulty can be explained, in large part, by the absence of a statutory definition of the phrase combined with the consistently competing interests of all tax litigants-the government and the taxpayer. The crux of the problem has been stated as follows: “Because the actuarial value of a remainder interest is substantially less than the fair market value of the underlying property, the sale of a remainder interest for its actuarial value is viewed by many as allowing the taxpayer to transfer property to the remainderman for less consideration than is required in an outright .sale. Con- ■ sequently, the sale of a remainder interest for its actuarial value, although such value represents the fair market value of the remainder interest, raises the question of whether the seller has been adequately compensated for the transfer of the underlying property to the remainderman. If the actuarial value of the remainder interest does not represent adequate compensation for the transfer of the underlying property to the remainderman, the taxpayer may be subject to both the gift tax and the estate tax.... If the taxpayer holds the retained interest until death, section 2036(a) of the [Code] pulls the underlying property back into the taxpayer’s gross estate, unless the transfer is a bona fide sale for adequate and full consideration.” Martha W. Jordan, Sales of Remainder Interests: Reconciling Gradow v. United States and Section 2702, 14 Va. Tax Rev. 671, 673 (1995). Both parties agreé that, for the purposes of the gift tax (section 2512 of the Code), consideration equal to the actuarial value of the remainder interest constitutes adequate consideration. See also Treas. Reg. § 25.2512-5(A). For estate tax purposes, however, authorities are split. Commentators have generally urged the same construction should apply, see, e.g., Jordan, supra; Steven A. Horowitz, Economic Reality In Estate Planning: The Case for Remainder Interest Sales, 73 Taxes 386 (1995); Jeffrey N. Pennell, Cases Addressing Sale of Remainder Wrongly Decided, 22 Est. Plan. 305 (1995), and the Third Circuit has held that “adequate and full consideration” under section 2036(a) is determined in reference to the value of the remainder interest transferred, not the value of the full fee simple interest in the underlying property. D'Ambrosio v. Commissioner, 101 F.3d 309 (3d Cir.1996), cert. denied, - U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 1822, 137 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1997). On the other hand, Gradow v. United States, 11 Cl.Ct. 808 (1987), aff'd, 897 F.2d 516 (Fed.Cir.1990), and its faithful progeny Pittman v. United States, 878 F.Supp. 833 (E.D.N.C.1994), and D’Ambrosio v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 252, 1995 WL 564078 (1995), rev’d 101 F.3d 309 (3d Cir.1996), cert. denied, - U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 1822, 137 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1997), have stated that a remainder interest must be sold for an amount equal to the value of the full fee simple interest in the underlying property in order to come within the parenthetical exception clause of section 2036(a). This Court has yet to address the precise issue. II. A. Gradow v. United States and the Widow’s Election Cases As the government’s position rests principally on an analogy offered by the Claims Court in Gradow, a preliminary summary of the widow’s election mechanism in the community property context is appropriate. In a community property state, a husband and wife generally each have an undivided, one-half interest in the property owned in common by virtue of their marital status, with each spouse having the power to dispose, by testamentary instrument, of his or her share of the community property. Under a widow’s election will, the decedent spouse purports to dispose of the entire community property, the surviving spouse being left with the choice of either taking under the scheme of the will or waiving any right under the will and taking his or her community share outright. One common widow’s election plan provides for the surviving spouse to in effect exchange a remainder interest in his or her community property share for an equitable life estate in the decedent spouse’s community property share. In Gradow, Mrs. Gradow, the surviving spouse, was put to a similar election. If she rejected the will, she was to receive only her share of the community property. Id. 11 Cl.Ct. at 809. If she chose instead to take ■under her husband’s will, she was required to transfer her share of the community property to a trust whose assets would consist of the community property of both spouses, with Mrs. Gradow receiving all the trust income for life and, upon her death, the trust corpus being distributed to the Gradows’ son. Id. Mrs. Gradow chose to take under her husband’s will and, upon her death, the executor of her estate did not include any of the trust assets within her gross estate. Id. The executor asserted that the life estate received by Mrs. Gradow was full and adequate consideration under section 2036(a) for the transfer of her community property share to the trust, but the IRS disagreed. Id. Before the Claims Court, the parties stipulated that the value of Mrs. Gradow’s share of the community property exceeded the actuarial value of an estate for her life in her husband’s share. Id. However, the estate contended that the value of the life estate in the husband’s share equaled or exceeded the value of the remainder interest in Mrs. Gra-dow’s share. The Claims Court did not clearly resolve that contention because it determined that the consideration flowing from Mrs. Gradow was “the entire value of the property she placed in the trust, i.6., her half of the community property,” and that thus the life estate was inadequate consideration, so the exception to section 2036(a) was unavailable. Id. at 810. The court in Gradow concluded that the term “property” in section 2036(a) referred to the entirety of that part of the trust corpus attributable to Mrs. Gradow. Id. at 813. Therefore, according to the court, if the general rule of section 2036(a) were to apply, the date-of-death value of the property transferred to the trust corpus by Mrs. Gra-dow-rather than the zero date-of-death value of her life interest in that property-would be included in her gross estate. Id. Citing “[fundamental principles of grammar,” the court concluded that the bona fide sale exception must refer to adequate and full consideration for the property placed into the trust and not the remainder interest in that property. Id. Fundamental principles of grammar aside, the Gradow court rested its conclusion equally on the underlying purpose of section 2036(a), observing that: “The only way to preserve the integrity of the section, then, is to view the consideration moving from the surviving spouse as that property which is taken out of the gross estate. In the context of intra-family transactions which are plainly testamentary, it is not unreasonable to require that, at a minimum, the sale accomplish an equilibrium for estate tax purposes.” Id. at 813-14. In support of its equilibrium rule, the Gra-dow court cited precedent in the adequate and full consideration area, most notably United States v. Allen, 293 F.2d 916 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 944, 82 S.Ct. 378, 7 L.Ed.2d 340 (1961). It is not our task to address the merits of Gradow’s analysis of how section 2036(a) operates in the widow’s election context but rather to determine whether the Gradow decision supports the construction urged by the government in the sale of a remainder context. We conclude that the widow election cases present factually distinct circumstances that preclude the wholesale importation of Gradow’s rationale into the present case. As noted, a widow’s election mechanism generally involves an arrangement whereby the surviving spouse exchanges a remainder interest in her community property share for a life estate in that of her deceased spouse. Usually, as in Gradow, the interests are in trust. Necessarily, the receipt of an equitable life estate in the decedent-spouse’s community property share does little to offset the reduction in the surviving spouse’s gross estate caused by the transfer of her remainder interest. It is precisely this imbalance that the commentators cited in Gradow- and the “equilibrium rule” gleaned from United States v. Allen-recognized as the determinative factor in the widow’s election context. Because a surviving spouse’s transfer of a remainder interest depletes the gross estate, there can be no “bona fide sale for an adequate and full consideration” unless the gross estate is augmented commensurately. See Charles L.B. Lowndes, Consideration and the Federal Estate and Gift taxes: Transfers for Partial Consideration, Relinquishment of Marital Rights, Family Annuities, the Widow’s Election, and Reciprocal Trusts, 35 Geo. Wash. L.Rev. 50, 66 (1966); Stanley M. Johanson, Revocable Trusts, Widow’s Election Wills, and Community Property: The Tax Problems, 47 Tex. L.Rev. 1247, 1283-84 (1969) (“But in the widow’s election situation, the interest the wife receives as a result of her election-transfer is a life estate in her husband’s community share-an interest which, by its nature, will not be taxed in the wife’s estate at her death. It appears that the wife’s estate is given a consideration offset for the receipt of an interest that did not augment her estate.”). Accordingly, we need not address the issue whether the value or income derived from a life estate in the decedent-spouse’s community property share can ever constitute adequate and full consideration. For our purposes it is enough to observe that, in most cases, the equitable life estate received by the surviving spouse will not sufficiently augment her gross estate to offset the depletion caused by the transfer of her remainder interest. This depletion of the gross estate prevents the operation of the adequate and full consideration exception to section 2036(a). Had the court in Gradow limited its discussion of section 2036(a)’s adequate and full consideration exception to the widow’s election context, the nettlesome task of distinguishing its blanket rule of including the value of the full fee interest on the underlying property when a remainder interest is transferred might be somewhat easier. In dicta, however, and apparently in response to a hypothetical posed by the taxpayer, the Gradow court let loose a response that, to say the least, has since acquired a life of its own. The entire passage-and the source of much consternation-is as follows: “Plaintiff argues that the defendant’s construction would gut the utility of the ‘bona fide sales’ exception and uses a hypothetical to illustrate his point. In the example a 40-year-old man contracts to put $100,000.00 into a trust, reserving the income for life but selling the remainder. Plaintiff points out that based on the seller’s life' expectancy, he might receive up to $30,000.00 for the remainder, but certainly no more. He argues that this demonstrates the unfairness of defendant insisting on consideration equal to the $100,000.00 put into trust before it would exempt the sale from § 2036(a). There are a number of defects in plaintiffs hypothetical. First, the transaction is obviously not testamentary, unlike the actual circumstances here. In addition, plaintiff assumes his conclusion by focusing on the sale of the remainder interest as the only relevant transaction. Assuming it was not treated as a sham, the practical effect is a transfer of the entire $100,-000.00, not just a remainder. More importantly, however, if plaintiff is correct that one should be able, under the ‘bona fide sale’ exception to remove property from the gross estate by a sale of the remainder interest, the exception would swallow the rule. A young person could sell a remainder interest for a fraction of the property’s worth, enjoy the property for life, and then pass it along without estate or gift tax consequences.” Gradow, 11 Cl.Ct. at 815. The Claims Court went on to conclude that “[t]he fond hope that a surviving spouse would take pains to invest, compound, and preserve inviolate all the life income from half of a trust, knowing that it would thereupon be taxed without his or her having received any lifetime benefit, is a slim basis for putting a different construction on § 2036(a) than the one heretofore consistently adopted.” Id. at 816. One can only imagine the enthusiasm with which the IRS received the news that, at least in the view of ope court, it would not have to consider the time value of money when determining adequate and full consideration for a remainder interest. Subsequent to the Gradow decision, the government has successfully used the above quoted language to justify inclusion in the gross estate of the value of the full fee interest in the underlying property even where the transferor sold the remainder interest for its undisputed actuarial value. See Pittman v. United States, 878 F.Supp. 833 (E.D.N.C. 1994). See also D’Ambrosio v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 252, 1995 WL 564078 (1995), rev’d, 101 F.3d 309 (3d Cir.1996), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1822, 137 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1997). Pittman (and the Tax Court’s decision' in D’Ambrosio) presents a conscientious estate planner with quite a conundrum. If the taxpayer sells a remainder interest for its actuarial value as calculated under the Treasury Regulations, but retains a life estate, the value of the full fee interest in the underlying property will be included in his gross estate and the transferor will incur substantial estate tax liability under section 2036(a). If the taxpayer chooses instead to follow Gra-dow, and is somehow able to find a willing purchaser of his remainder interest for the full fee-simple value of the underlying property, he will in fact avoid estate tax liability; section 2036(a) would not be triggered. The purchaser, however, having paid the fee-simple value for the remainder interest in the estate, will have paid more for the interest than it was worth. As the “adequate and full consideration” for a remainder interest under section 2512(b) is its actuarial value, the purchaser will have made a gift of the amount paid in excess of its actuarial value, thereby incurring gift tax liability. Surely, in the words of Professor Gilmore, this “carr[ies] a good joke too far.” B. United States v. Allen The problem with the Gradow dicta is that, in its effort to escape the hypothetical posed by the taxpayer, it lost sight of the very principle the court was trying to apply; namely, the notion that adequate and full consideration under the exception to section 2036(a) requires only that the sale not deplete the gross estate. Gradow was correct in observing that “it is not unreasonable to require that, at a minimum, the sale accomplish an equilibrium for estate tax purposes.” Gradow, 11 Cl.Ct. at 813-14. Indeed, United States v. Allen, 293 F.2d 916, when properly construed, stands simply for that proposition. In Allen, the decedent had created, and made a donative transfer of assets to, an irrevocable inter vivos trust, reserving a three-fifth interest in the income for life, her two children to receive the remainder in the entire corpus and the other two-fifths of the income. Id. at 916. Thereafter, being advised that her retention of the three-fifths of the life estate would result in the inclusion of three-fifths of the trust corpus in her gross estate at her death, the decedent sold her life estate to one of her children for a little over its actuarial value. She died shortly thereafter. Id. at 916-17. The trial court, although finding that the transfer of the life estate was made in contemplation of death, found that the consideration paid for it was “adequate and full,” thereby removing the property from the taxpayer’s estate. The Tenth Circuit reversed. Using the language that Gra-dow later quoted, the Tenth Circuit determined that the adequacy of the consideration paid for the life estate should be measured not against the interest received by the purchaser, but . rather by the amount that would prevent depletion of the transferor’s gross estate. Id. at 918 & n. 2. “It does not seem plausible, however, that Congress intended to allow such an easy avoidance of the taxable incidence befalling reserved life estates. This result would allow a taxpayer to reap the benefits of property for his lifetime and, in contemplation of death, sell only the interest entitling him to the income, thereby removing all of the property which he has enjoyed from his gross estate. Giving the statute a reasonable interpretation, we cannot believe this to be its intendment. It seems certain that in a situation like this, Congress meant the estate to include the corpus of the trust or, in its stead, an amount equal in value.” Id. at 918; but cf. 5 Boris I. Bittker & Lawrence Lokken, Federal Taxation of Income, Estates and Gifts ¶ 126.3.5, at 126-27 (1993) (noting that Allen may have “stretch[ed] the statutory language in a good cause”). Crucial to a proper reading of Allen is the factual basis of the Tenth Circuit’s holding. The decedent, Maria Allen, had gratuitously transferred a remainder interest in an irrevocable trust to her two children, reserving a life estate in three-fifths for herself. Under section 811 of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code (the precursor to sections 2035 and 2036), this transaction retained the value of the full fee interest in three-fifths of the trust corpus in Maria Allen’s gross estate for estate tax purposes. For this very reason, Maria Allen, at age seventy-eight, subsequently sold to one of her children her three-fifths life estate for an amount ($140,000) slightly in excess of its actuarial value ($135,-000). The intended result of this sale was to remove the value of the entire fee interest in three-fifths of the trust corpus from Maria Allen’s gross estate; as long as she retained the life estate, section 811 would pull the date-of-death value of her three-fifths remainder interest ($900,000) into her gross estate. Therefore, unlike the hypothetical addressed in Gradow or the facts of the case here presented, the actuarial value of the transferred interest, the life estate, would not have prevented depletion of the gross estate in Allen. See Jordan, Sales of Remainder Interests, at 699 (“The conclusion in Allen that adequate consideration for the sale of a retained life estate equals the value of the trust corpus includible in the gross estate derives from the special punitive nature of section 2035 of the Code ..., and not from the proposition that the transfer of a split-interest removes the entire underlying property from the gross estate.”). C. In Pari Materia As alluded to above, significant problems arise when “adequate and full consideration” is given one meaning under section 2512 and quite another for the purposes of section 2036(a). In a pair of companion cases in 1945, the Supreme Court set forth the general principle that, because the gift and estate taxes complement each other, the phrase “adequate and full consideration” must mean the same thing in both statutes. See Merrill v. Fahs, 324 U.S. 308, 309-11, 65 S.Ct. 655, 656, 89 L.Ed. 963 (1945) (‘“The gift tax was supplementary to the estate tax. The two are in pari materia and must be construed together.’”) (quoting Estate of Sanford v. Commissioner, 308 U.S. 39, 43-45, 60 S.Ct. 51, 56, 84 L.Ed. 20 (1939)); Commissioner v. Wemyss, 324 U.S. 303, 65 S.Ct. 652, 89 L.Ed. 958 (1945); Estate of Friedman v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 714, 718-19, 1963 WL 1403 (1963) (“The phrase ‘an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth,’ common to both the estate and gift tax statutes here pertinent, is to be given an ‘identical construction’ in regard to each of them.”) (citing Fahs, 324 U.S. at 309-11, 65 S.Ct. at 656). In Fahs, the Court observed: “Correlation of the gift tax and the estate tax still requires legislative intervention, [citations] But to interpret the same phrases in the two taxes concerning the same subject matter in different ways where obvious reasons do not compel divergent treatment is to introduce another and needless complexity into this already irksome situation.” Id. at 313, 65 S.Ct. at 657. The “purpose” of gift and estate taxes was articulated clearly in Wemyss: “The section taxing as gifts transfers that are not made for ‘adequate and full [money] consideration’ aims to reach those transfers which are withdrawn from the donor’s estate.” Wemyss, 324 U.S. at 307, 65 S.Ct. at 655. In Wemyss, the donor received no consideration in money’s worth to replenish his estate for the transfer of stock to his bride, and therefore his estate was depleted by the amount of the transfer. The bride’s relinquishment of her interest in an existing trust provided no augmentation to the donor’s estate. The following rule emerges: unless a transfer that depletes the transferor’s estate is joined with a transfer that augments the estate by a commensurate (monetary) amount, there is no “adequate and full consideration” for the purposes of either the estate or gift tax. We thus come full circle to the “equilibrium rule” set forth in United States v. Allen and cited in Gradow. The problem that appears to have vexed the Claims Court in Gradow when it considered the remainder sale hypothetical posed by the taxpayer (and the Pittman district court and the Tax Court in D Ambrosio who chose to follow the Gradow approach) is that, believing themselves to be between the Scylla of estate tax evasion and the Charybdis of misconstruction of the gift tax statute, they looked for guidance to a line of estate tax decisions more confusing than the task they faced. In Allen, as was observed, the amount required to prevent depletion of the gross estate caused by the in contemplation of death sale of Maria Allen’s retained life estate was indeed the value of the underlying estate, as that was the amount by which Maria Allen’s gross estate was depleted. See note 12, supra, and accompanying text. See also Lowndes, Consideration and the Federal Estate and Gift Taxes, at 51 (“[T]he estate and gift taxes limit the consideration which will prevent a taxable transfer to an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth, that is, to a consideration which will serve as a substitute for the transferred property in the transferor’s taxable estate.”). The actuarial value, of Maria Allen’s life estate simply would not, and did not, prevent the depletion of her estate. This concern is not implicated by the sale of a remainder interest for its actuarial value. The sale of a remainder interest for its actuarial value does not deplete the seller’s estate. “The actuarial value of the remainder interest equals the amount that will grow to a principal sum equal to the value of the property that passes to the remainderman at termination of the retained interest. To reach this conclusion, the tables assume that both the consideration received for the remainder interest and the underlying property are invested at the table rate of interest, compounded annually.” Jordan, Sales of Remainder Interests, at 692-93 (citing Keith E. Morrison, The Widow’s Election: The Issue of Consideration, 44 Tex. L.Rev. 223, 237-38 (1965)). In other words, the actuarial tables are premised on the recognition that, at the end of the actuarial period, there is no discernible difference between (1) an estate holder retaining the full fee interest in the estate and (2) an estate holder retaining income from the life estate and selling the remainder interest for its actuarial value-in either case, the estate is not depleted. This is so because both interests, the life estate and the remainder interest, are capable of valuation. Recognizing this truism, the accumulated value of a decedent’s estate is precisely the same whether she retains the fee interest or receives the actuarial value of the remainder interest outright by a sale prior to her actual. death. Id. at 691-92; Morrison, The Issue of Consideration, at 237-38. Two possible objections-which are more properly directed at the wisdom of accepting actuarial factors than at the result just described-should be addressed. The first, to paraphrase the Claims Court in Gra-dow, is that the fee interest holder, in such a situation, might squander the proceeds from the sale of the remainder interest and, therefore, deplete the estate. See Gradow, 11 Cl.Ct. at 816 (noting that “[t]he fond hope that a surviving spouse would take pains to invest, compound, and preserve inviolate all [proceeds from a sale of the remainder interest], knowing that it would thereupon be taxed without his or her having received any lifetime benefit, is a slim basis” for holding the actuarial value of a remainder interest is adequate and full consideration under section 2036(a)). This objection amounts to a misapprehension of the estate tax. Whether an estate holder takes the “talents” received from the sale of the remainder interest and purchases blue chip securities, invests in highly volatile commodities futures, funds a gambling spree, or chooses instead to bury them in the ground, may speak to the wisdom of the estate holder, see Matthew 25:14-30, but it is of absolutely no significance to the proper determination of whether, at the time of the transfer, the estate holder received full and adequate consideration under section 2036(a). If further explanation is required, we point out that Gradow itself seems to have reached the same conclusion in an earlier portion of the opinion. See Gradow, 11 Cl.Ct. at 813 (“Even if the consideration is fungible and easily consumed, at least theoretically the rest of the estate is protected from encroachment for lifetime expenditures.”). See also Jordan, Sales of Remainder Interests, at 695-96 & n.105; Morrison, The Issue of Consideration, at 236-44. The second objection is no more availing. If a sale of a remainder interest for its actuarial value-an amount, it is worth noting, that is nothing more than the product of the undisputed “fair market value” of the underlying estate multiplied by an actuarial factor designed to adjust for the investment return over the actuarial period-constitutes adequate and full consideration under section 2036(a), then the estate holder successfully “freezes” the value of the transferred remainder at its date-of-transfer value. Accordingly, any post-transfer appreciation of the remainder interest over and above the appreciation percentage anticipated by the actuarial tables passes to the re-mainderman free of the estate tax. But, of course, this is a problem only if the proceeds of the sale are not invested in assets which appreciate as much (or depreciate as little) as the remainder. Moreover, those who recall the Great Depression, as well as more recent times, know that assets frequently do not appreciate. Indeed, Melton’s ranch did not appreciate, but rather at his death was worth less than eighty-two percent of its value when the remainder was sold. Finally, to the extent that this “freeze” concern is legitimate, we note, as discussed infra, that Congress, through the passage in 1987 of former section 2036(c) and, later, its 1990 repeal and the enactment then of section 2702, has spoken to the issue. D. Section 2036(a)’s Bona Fide Sale Requirement The magistrate judge below, and the government at oral argument, asserted that the requirement that a sale for adequate and full consideration be “bona fide” under section 2036(a) takes on a heightened significance in the context of intrafamily transfers. “Although the presumption in an intrafamily transfer is that the transfer between related parties is a gift, the presumption that an intrafamily transaction is gratuitous ‘may be rebutted by an affirmative showing that there existed at the time of the transaction a real expectation of repayment and intent to enforce the collection of the indebtedness.’ ” Estate of Musgrove v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 657, 662 (1995) (citations omitted); accord Kincaid v. United States, 682 F.2d 1220, 1225-26 (5th Cir.1982); Slappey Drive Ind. Park v. United States, 561 F.2d 572, 584 n. 21 (5th Cir.1977); Dillin v. United States, 433 F.2d 1097, 1103 (5th Cir.1970). Heightened scrutiny serves the purpose of allowing inquiry beyond form to the substance of transactions in order to determine the appropriate tax consequences. But here, where the intrafamily transaction comports in substance with the government’s own regulations, the government would have us take the opposite approach. The government argues that we should ignore the economic reality of a remainder interest sale and decide the tax issue based solely on the identity of the parties. To the extent the “bona fide” qualifier in section 2036(a) has any independent meaning beyond requiring that neither transfers nor the adequate and full consideration for them be illusory or sham, it might be construed as permitting legitimate, negotiated commercial transfers of split-interests that would not otherwise qualify as adequate consideration using the actuarial table values set forth in the Treasury Regulations to qualify under the exception. Such a result comports with the same construction the term is given in the gift tax regulations. The gift tax regulations prevent an “ironclad” operation of the gift tax statute from transforming every bad bargain into a gift by the losing party. See Weller v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 790, 806-07, 1962 WL 1166 (1962); 6 Bittker & Lokken, Federal Taxation, at 121-31. See also id. at 126-20. Accordingly, the term “bona fide” preceding “sale” in section 2036 is not, as the government seems to suggest, an additional wicket reserved exclusively for intrafamily transfers that otherwise meet the Treasury Regulations’ valuation criteria. The government implicitly asserts that the term “bona fide” in section 2036(a) permits the IRS to declare that the same remainder interest, sold for precisely the same (actuarial) amount but to different purchasers, would constitute adequate and full consideration for a third party but not for a family member. This construction asks too much of these two small words. In addition to arguing that “adequate and full consideration” means different things for gift tax purposes than it does for estate tax purposes, the government would also have us give “bona fide” not only a different construction depending on whether we are applying the gift or estate tax statute, but also different meanings depending upon the identity of the purchaser in a section 2036(a) transaction. We do not believe that Congress intended, nor do we believe the language of the statute supports, such a construction. Certainly an intrafamily transfer-like any other-must be a “bona fide sale” for the purposes of section 2036(a). But assuming, as we must here, that a family member purports to pay the appropriate value of the remainder interest, the only possible grounds for challenging the legitimacy of the transaction are whether the transferor actually parted with the remainder interest and the transferee actually parted with the requisite adequate and full consideration. Accordingly, we do not find convincing the government’s position that the term “bona fide” as used in section 2036(a) presents an adequate basis for imposing a dual system of valuation under the statute. E. IntraFamily Transactions At oral argument the government pursued a line of reasoning not fully anticipated by their briefs Gradow /no-bona-fide-transaction theory. Stated concisely, the government asserted that, because the purpose of section 2036(a) is to reach those split-interest transfers that amount to testamentary substitutes and include the underlying asset’s value in the gross estate, the adequate and full consideration for intrafamily transfers-which are generally testamentary in nature because the interest passes “to the natural objects of one’s bounty in the next generation”-must be measured against the entire value of the underlying asset in order to accomplish section 2036(a)’s purpose. This argument is necessarily at odds with Gradow’s “fundamental principles of grammar” approach that rested on a construction of the bona fide sale exception that did not purport to distinguish between either the identity or the subjective intent of the parties. We reject the government’s proffered construction as not supported by the statutory language. Moreover, a policy-based argument to preclude intrafamily transfers of split-interests for full actuarial value if the transaction appears to have been undertaken in contemplation of death embraces a concept that the Congress chose to abandon twenty years ago-the notion that the subjective intent of an asset holder should determine the tax consequences of his transfer. Given the similarity between the government’s argument and the old gift-in-contemplation-of-death scheme, a brief review is appropriate. Recognizing that the most obvious way to defeat the estate tax would be through inter vivos gifts, the estate tax, from its inception, contained a provision including in the gross estate certain inter vivos transfers “intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment” at or after the decedent’s death and those made “in contemplation of death.” 5 Bittker & Lokken, supra, at 126-30 (citing Revenue Act of 1916, Pub.L. No. 271, 39 Stat. 756). Although the Federal Gift Tax, enacted in 1932, reduced the tax avoidance possible through the use of inter vivos transfers, its lower rates and separate exemptions continued the need for estate tax treatment of gifts made in contemplation of death. Id. at 126-31. Accordingly, Congress enacted the predecessor to section 2035 “to reach inter vivos transfers of property used as substitutes for testamentary dispositions.” Hope v. United States, 691 F.2d 786, 790 (5th Cir.1982) (citing United States v. Wells, 283 U.S. 102, 115-20, 51 S.Ct. 446, 451-52, 75 L.Ed. 867 (1931)). Death was “ ‘contemplated’ within- the meaning of the statutory presumption if the dominant motive for the transfer [was] the creation of a substitute for testamentary disposition designed to avoid the imposition of estate taxes.” Id. (citation omitted). In 1976, Congress amended section 2035 to omit the contemplation of death provision, placing in its stead an absolute rule including in the gross estate all gifts made by the decedent within three years of death. The congressional' intent-relevant to the present case as well--was patent: “Congress was troubled by the inordinate number of lawsuits by taxpayers who attempted to establish life motives for transfers otherwise taxable under the statute. The statutory change in section 2035 bore a rational relationship to a legitimate congressional purpose: eliminating factbound determinations, hinging upon subjective motive.” Estate of Ekins v. Commissioner, 797 F.2d 481, 486 (7th Cir.1986) (citing H.R.Rep. No. 94-1380, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 12 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2897, 3366) (emphasis added)); Hope, 691 F.2d at 788 n. 3 (same). Section 2035 was amended again in 1981 to eliminate the three year rule, subject to certain exceptions, for persons dying after 1981. The Economic Recovery Act of 1981, Pub.L. 97-34, Title IV, §§ 403(b)(3)(B), 424(a), 95 Stat. 301, 317; § 2035(d)(1). It is safe to say that, with the possible exception of gifts causa mortis, the present transfer tax scheme eschews subjective intent determinations in favor of the objective requirements set forth in the statutes. Therefore, section 2036(a) permits the conclusion that a split-interest transfer was testamentary when, and if, the objective requirement that the transfer be for an adequate and full consideration is not met. Section 2036(a) does not, however, permit a perceived testamentary intent, ipse dixit, to determine what amount constitutes an adequate and full consideration. Unless and until the Congress declares that intrafamily transfers are to be treated differently, see I.R.C. §§ 2701-2704 (West Supp.1996) discussed below, we must rely on the objective criteria set forth in the statute and Treasury Regulations to determine whether a sale comes within the ambit of the exception to section 2036(a). The. identity of the transferee or the perceived testamentary intent of the transferor, provided all amounts transferred are identical, cannot result in transfer tax liability in one ease and a tax free transfer in another. F. Former Section 2036(c) and Chapter 14 The final obstacle preventing our acceptance of the government’s construction of section 2036(a) is Congress’ enactment of section 2036(c) in 1987 and its retroactive repeal and enactment of chapter 14 in 1990. Although we are not faced with the need to determine the applicability of the 1990 estate freeze provisions to the facts of this case, we find that the abuses of the type which the government perceives in the challenged transaction were addressed by Congress when it passed section former 2036(c) in 1987 and, subsequently in 1990, when it chose to replace former section 2036(c) with the special valuation rules of chapter 14. Congress enacted former section 2036(c) in 1987 to address certain estate “freezing techniques” enabling taxpayers to take advantage of the assumptions underlying the valuation tables in the Treasury Regulations. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, Pub.L. No. 100-203,101 Stat. 1330-1431; see also Mitchell M. Gans, GRIT’s, GRAT’s and GRUT’s: Planning and Policy, 11 Va. Tax Rev. 761, 791 & n.63 (1992). Under the terms of former section 2036(c), the “exception contained in subsection [2036](a) for a bona fide sale shall not apply to a transfer described in paragraph (1) if such transfer is to a member of the transferor’s family.” I.R.C. § 2036(c)(2) (West 1989), repealed by P.L. 101-508, sec. 11601, 104 Stat. 1388 (1990). See also id. at § 2036(c)(3)(B) (defining “family” to include a “relationship by legal adoption”) A paragraph (1) transfer involved a transfer by the holder of a “substantial interest in an enterprise” while retaining an interest in the income or rights of the transferred enterprise. Former § 2036(c)(l)(A)-(B). Although “enterprise” as used in the legislative history and the subsequent interpretation offered by the IRS was capable of a more restrictive application, the reach of former section 2036(e) could have “potentially embrace[d] almost any activity relating to property held for personal use as well as business or investment property.” Karen C. Burke, Valuation Freezes after the 1988 Act: The Impact of Section 2036(c) on Closely Held, Businesses, 31 Wm. & Mary L.Rev. 67, 91 (1989) (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 495, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 996, reprinted in 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2313-1245, 2313-1742; I.R.S. Notice 89-99, 1989-38 I.R.B. 4); Bruce Bettigole, Use of Estate Freeze Severely Restricted by Revenue Act of ’87, 68 J. Tax’n 132, 133 (1988) (“Read literally, this provision would destroy the effectiveness of sales of remainder interests .... [Bjecause of the client’s retained interest in the ‘enterprise’ (ie., property), upon his death the full fair market value of the remainder interest will be included in his gross estate.”). In response to severe criticism of former section 2036(c) passed in 1987, Congress enacted the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388, which repealed former section 2036(e) retroactively and replaced it with the valuation rules set forth in I.R.C. sections 2701-2704. See 5 Bittker & Lokken, supra, 136-3 to 136-4. Under section 2702, transfers of interests in trust to a member of the transferor’s family trigger special valuation rules. The general rule of section 2702 values the remainder interest transferred as having the value of the full fee interest by setting the value of the retained interest at zero. I.R.C. § 2702(a)(2). In other words, the general rule of section 2702 seems to accomplish, explicitly, precisely what the government argues that 2036(a) accomplishes by implication. Because there are overwhelming indications that the estate freeze provisions adopted by Congress in 1990 were designed to address the perceived shortcomings of section 2036(a), we find unconvincing the government’s suggestion on brief that “there is nothing in [section] 2702 or its legislative history indicating that a transfer with a retained life estate, even if within [section] 2702, was not already subject to the provisions of [section] 2036(a).” Accordingly, we hold that the sale of a remainder interest for its actuarial value as calculated by the appropriate factor set forth in the Treasury Regulations constitutes an adequate and full consideration under section 2036(a). III. As the government stipulated that the sale of the remainder interest to Melton’s ranch was for its full actuarial value, the only remaining issue is whether the sale of the remainder interest was, in fact, a bona fide sale or was instead a disguised gift or a sham transaction. The magistrate judge determined on summary judgment that sale of the Melton ranch remainder interest was not bona fide. The magistrate judge cited the following factors as pertinent to his recommendation: (1) John and David did not pay cash for the remainder interest and were not capable of paying cash at the time of the sale because of their relatively low annual salaries; (2) John and David began receiving substantial annual bonuses in 1986 and they used large portions of the bonuses to pay down the note; (3) there were no negotiations regarding the purchase price of the transaction; and (4) Melton forgave portions of the debt evidenced by the note prior to its assignment to The Melton Company. These factors led the magistrate judge to conclude that the sale of the Melton ranch remainder interest amounted to an attempt to color a transaction that would otherwise be subject to section 2036(a)’s inclusion rule. See Estate of Maxwell v. Commissioner, 3 F.3d 591, 594 (2d Cir.1993) (holding that, where children of the decedent “bought” her personal residence and leased it back to her for approximately the amount due under the note the children had executed in her favor, the lease-back was merely an attempt to “color” the transfer). We find the stipulated facts and the structure of the transaction lead to a contrary conclusion. First, the fact that John and David were not able, at the time of the transfer of the remainder interest, to then pay the full purchase price in cash provides little, if any, guidance on the legitimacy of the transaction. It is not unusual for purchasers of real property, whether purchasing a remainder interest or a full fee, to lack the financial wherewithal to complete the transaction without incurring a debt obligation. Although it is conceivable that the very issuance of such a debt instrument can make the transfer donative (for example, if the obligors received a severely discounted interest rate or presented the kind of credit risk that would not justify the debt without a significantly higher yield on the note), the government did not challenge the terms of the note or, for that matter, the creditworthiness of John and David. The “Real Estate Lien Note” executed by John and David provided, initially, for annual principal payments of $10,000 at an annual interest rate of seven percent. The interest rate on matured, unpaid amounts was set at eighteen percent. The note contained acceleration provisions and provided for attorney’s fees in the event of a default. Each maker had personal liability for the full amount. Finally, the note was fully secured and assignable. Aside from the identity of the parties, no factor evinces a donative transfer. The government contends that, without the substantial bonuses received by John and David beginning in 1986, their base salaries would not have enabled them to repay the debt evidenced by the note. Bonuses are a way of life in corporate America and the fact that bonuses are used to compensate the employee-shareholders of a close corporation should come as no surprise to the IRS. See F. Hodge O’Neal & Robert B. Thompson, O’Neal’s Close Corporations §§ 8.22-8.27 (3d ed. 1994 & Supp.1996) (discussing the various forms of bonus compensation plans used by close corporations and, inter alia, their tax ramifications). The determinative issue regarding the payment of the bonuses to John and David is not, as the government would have us believe, whether the bonuses enabled the sons to pay the debt evidenced by the note, but rather whether the bonuses were tied to the note’s repayment. The receipt of bonuses simpliciter, even in a close corporation held by members of the same family, does not transform compensation into a donative transfer scheme. Rather, bonuses serve many legitimate business purposes, from recognizing a manager’s ability to rewarding an employee proportionately for the success of the company. That a particular company should choose to compensate their employees chiefly through a system of cash bonuses-as opposed to straight salary, options or warrants, commission, or on a per transaction basis-does not control our analysis. The magistrate judge, although recognizing that “payment on the note was not a precondition to receipt of the bonuses,” nevertheless found telling the fact that “the note could not have been retired without the bonuses.” His first finding negated the relevance of his second. John and Michael received bonuses in addition to their salaries in the following amounts: Year John Michael 1986 $ 50,000 $ 55,000 1987 $250,000 $250,000 1988 $125,000 $125,000 1989 $200,000 $200,000 1990 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 1991 $150,000 $150,000 It is undisputed that John and Michael paid incom