- 23 -
Consequently, in order to address petitioner’s arguments, we must
first examine whether the Appeals Office abused its discretion in
determining that petitioner had an interest in the Claremore
property.
While the priority of competing claims to property is
determined under Federal law, whether a taxpayer owns an interest
in, or exercises a right with respect to, property is determined
under State law. Aquilino v. United States, 363 U.S. 509 (1960).
However, “The question whether a state-law right constitutes
‘property’ or ‘rights to property’ is a matter of federal law.”
United States v. Natl. Bank of Commerce, supra at 727; see also
Drye v. United States, supra at 58.
Petitioner argues that he was not the beneficial owner of
the Claremore property under Oklahoma law. He undercut his
argument during the hearing and before this Court, however, by
admitting that he owned an interest in the Claremore property by
reason of his mother’s death. Alice Criner died intestate in
1989 and was survived by six children. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 84,
�213B.2.a (West Supp. 2003), provides that, if there is no
surviving spouse, the decedent’s estate is distributed in
undivided equal shares to the surviving children of the decedent
and the issue of any deceased child.8 Under Oklahoma State law,
8Oklahoma State law also provides that, when a person dies
intestate leaving real property, title to the real property vests
(continued...)
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011