- 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