- 12 -
A. Whatever who want. I don't--
Q. Would that be Mr. Rungrangsi?
A. Should be.
It is evident that the benefits and burdens of ownership of
the restaurant were never transferred to Ms. Eagatatt, see Grodt &
McKay Realty, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, and petitioners
continued to retain significant control over the restaurant and its
operation, see Tolwinsky v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 1009, 1041
(1986); see also Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331 (1940); Hilton
v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 305 (1980), affd. 671 F.2d 316 (9th Cir.
1982); Miller v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 767 (1977). The transfer of
the restaurant to Ms. Eagatatt was intended to create a security
interest, see Hedrick v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-54; see also
Helvering v. F.& R. Lazarus & Co., 308 U.S. 252, 255 (1939), and it
is well settled that the mortgaging of property does not constitute
a sale or exchange, Woodsam Associates, Inc. v. Commissioner, 16
T.C. 649, 653-654 (1951), affd. 198 F.2d 357 (2d Cir. 1952); Lutz
& Schramm Co. v. Commissioner, 1 T.C. 682, 689 (1943). "[T]axation
is not so much concerned with the refinements of title as it is
with actual command over the property taxed--the actual benefit for
which the tax is paid." Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376, 378
(1930).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011