Kenneth L. Musgrave and Etta D. Musgrave - Page 12




                                               - 12 -                                                  
            consideration and by which the purchaser secures immediate                                 
            possession and exercises all the rights of ownership.  The                                 
            delivery of a deed may be postponed and payment of part of the                             
            purchase price may be deferred by installment payments, but for                            
            taxing purposes it is enough if the vendor obtains under the                               
            contract the unqualified right to recover the consideration.  See                          
            Merrill v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 66 (1963) (quoting Commissioner                           
            v. Union Pac. R. Co., 86 F.2d 637, 639 (2d Cir. 1936), affg. 32                            
            B.T.A. 383 (1935)), affd. per curiam 336 F.2d 771 (9th Cir.                                
            1964).                                                                                     
                  It has long been recognized that property, in the legal                              
            sense, means not the thing itself, but the rights which inhere in                          
            it.  Ownership of property is not a single indivisible concept                             
            but a collection or bundle of rights with respect to the                                   
            property.  See, e.g., Merrill v. Commissioner, supra at 74.  In                            
            this case under Texas law the full equitable title did not pass                            
            to the Church when the contract for deed was signed in 1994.                               
            However, as against third parties the Church received equitable                            
            title to the property.  The Church bore the risk of loss or gain                           
            in the value of the property, had a right to possession, could                             
            sue third parties for nuisance or trespass, could erect                                    
            improvements on the land, was responsible for all taxes on the                             
            property, and, with consent of the vendor, could mortgage the                              
            property.  As against petitioner the Church had the equitable                              






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011