-14-
ownership before title passed, they would not prevail here even
if we gave little weight to the date of title passage.
Petitioners rely on Merrill v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 66, 74
(1963), affd. per curiam 336 F.2d 771 (9th Cir. 1964), for the
proposition that intent to transfer title is particularly
important if transfer of title is delayed by circumstances beyond
the control of the buyer and seller. In Merrill v. Commissioner,
supra, we held that a sale was completed even though title to the
property could not pass until several months later, a title
insurance policy had not been issued, and the balance of the
purchase price was to be paid at a future date. Id. at 74-77.
Petitioners' reliance on Merrill is misplaced. We stated in
Merrill that the intent of the parties as to when the benefits
and burdens of ownership of the property are to be transferred
will control where passage of title is delayed to secure payment
of the purchase price or for an escrow arrangement. Id. at 74.
The buyer in Merrill had assumed almost all the benefits and
burdens of ownership. However, we are not convinced that the
parties to the transaction at issue intended the benefits and
burdens to pass to petitioners before title passed, and as
discussed above, petitioners did not have the benefits and
burdens of ownership before title passed to them.
3. Petitioners' 1992 Tax Return
Petitioners checked the box on their 1992 income tax return
indicating that they had not owned and used the Spokane property
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