Dissenting Judge Livingston wrote a strongly-worded opinion that chastised the majority. Judge Livingston pointed out that decedent Margot retained exactly the same possession and enjoyment after the 49% gift that she had before the gift. In her view, the decision by the other two judges creates a huge loophole in Sec. 2036(a). Under all prior decisions, the retention of an interest resulted in 100% inclusion. If the courts are now going to be required to quantify the percentage gifted and the percentage included, there will in the future be "easy dodges by future tax avoiders."