- 8 -
trade fixtures within the meaning of California Code section
1019. Id.5
OPINION
Petitioner has the burden of proving that the improvements
at issue are removable trade fixtures within the meaning of
California Code section 1019. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering,
290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
The parties stipulated that the improvements at issue are
removable trade fixtures within the meaning of California Code
section 1019 and remained the property of FNF at the time of
decedent’s death if we find that: (1) FNF’s tenancy at will
under the lease continued notwithstanding the death of decedent;
(2) the improvements could be removed without injury to the
premises; and (3) the improvements, by the manner in which they
were affixed, had not become an integral part of the premises.
In our original opinion, we ruled on the first element. The U.S.
Court of Appeals reversed and held that FNF’s tenancy, and,
hence, implied right of removal, continued notwithstanding the
death of decedent. We must determine, therefore, whether the
5 In our opinion, we found that “The improvements placed on
the land by FNF were ‘trade fixtures’ within the meaning of
California Civil Code section 1019.” Estate of Frazier v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-201. This statement is not
dispositive of the question we are directed to resolve on remand.
We construe the question posed by the U.S. Court of Appeals as
the parties construe it, infra, whether the improvements meet the
elements of California Code sec. 1019 in order to qualify as a
removable trade fixture.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011