- 10 -
to insure the property against fire or other hazards.1 Although
the Sopers made some improvements, e.g., landscaping and new
wallpaper, they did not have the right to improve the property
without petitioners' consent. The Sopers: (a) Had the duty to
maintain the property; (b) had the right to obtain legal title
upon payment of the full purchase price; and (c) had the duty to
pay property taxes. The Sopers had possession of the Blue Lake
property under the 1988 lease. Petitioners contend that this was
a benefit of ownership the Sopers enjoyed before title passed.
However, the Sopers obtained possession independent of the option
agreement. Even if we treat the Sopers' possession of the Blue
Lake property under the lease as a benefit of ownership for
purposes of deciding whether a sale had occurred, an insufficient
range of benefits and burdens of ownership passed to the Sopers
before title passed on August 5, 1991, for us to find that the
date of sale preceded that date. We conclude that the Blue Lake
property was sold to the Sopers on August 5, 1991.
Petitioners rely on Baertschi v. Commissioner, 412 F.2d 494
(6th Cir. 1969), to support their position that the sale date is
determined by the date the benefits and burdens of ownership
passed to the Sopers. In Baertschi v. Commissioner, supra, the
1 The Sopers did pay for liability insurance through their
mortgage payments to Home Federal Bank.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011