Paul L. Blanton and Cynthia D. Blue-Blanton - Page 13

                                        -13-                                          
          Court resolved Deglow's claim to title.  Since this occurred in             
          late December 1989, title could not pass before then.                       
                    h.   Conclusion                                                   
               In summary, petitioners had:  (a) The right to possess and             
          use the W. 22d property, but not the right to rent it to others;            
          (b) the duty to maintain the property; and (c) a limited right to           
          improve the property without Hagan's consent.  Petitioners did              
          not:  (a) Bear the risk of loss of the property; (b) have the               
          obligation to pay taxes on the property; (c) have the                       
          responsibility to insure the property against fire or other                 
          hazards; or (d) have the right to obtain legal title at any time            
          by paying the balance of the purchase price.  We conclude that              
          petitioners did not have enough of the benefits and burdens of              
          ownership of the W. 22d property to be treated as owning it for             
          purposes of section 121 before title passed.                                
               2.   Title Passage to the Blantons                                     
               Title to the W. 22d property passed to the Blantons on                 
          January 31, 1990, less than 3 years before they sold it on                  
          October 30, 1992.  Passage of title is perhaps the most important           
          indicator of the date of sale of property.  Commissioner v.                 
          Baertschi, 412 F.2d 494, 498 (6th Cir. 1969), revg. and remanding           
          49 T.C. 289 (1967).                                                         
               Petitioners contend that the date of the passage of title is           
          less important here than in the usual case because passage of               
          title was delayed by a title dispute.  In light of our conclusion           
          that petitioners did not have the benefits and burdens of                   



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011