- 18 -
between petitioner and the RSC. The contractual terms defining
the relationship between petitioner and the RSC coupled with
petitioner's reimbursement of RSC expenses does not provide a
sufficient basis to find that the RSC was an agent of petitioner
for the purpose of acquiring real property. If the RSC was an
agent, it would be the agent of relocating employees because the
RSC had authority to transfer ownership to third-parties by
filling in the names of grantees on the deeds in blank. There is
no legal basis to find that, in substance, the RSC acted as
petitioner's agent. Even if we found the RSC to be petitioner's
agent, there would be no enforceable way for petitioner to
control the agency relationship without a writing that satisfies
the Statute of Frauds. A determination that the RSC was
petitioner's agent would be substance without reality. However,
we find that the RSC did not acquire beneficial ownership of the
residences, and we do not need to rely on the lack of an agency
relationship between petitioner and the RSC in our decision that
petitioner is not the owner of the residences.
Nothing in the record indicates that the parties treated the
transaction as a sale between the RSC and relocating employees.
Petitioner purposefully structured the financial assistance it
provided to relocating employees in the sale of their homes to
avoid taking legal title to the residences. The parties did not
intend to transfer ownership of the residences through the
contracts of sale. In addition, there is no evidence that
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011