- 25 -
(W.D.N.C. 1991); United States v. Drexler, 60 AFTR 2d 87-5091,
87-2 USTC par. 9493 (E.D. Okla. 1985).
We are aware, of course, that the Appeals Office determined
that petitioner was the sole equitable owner of the Claremore
property.9 Petitioner argues that Oklahoma State law does not
contemplate ownership in nominee form10 and that the Appeals
Office did not consider Oklahoma law in making its determination
upholding the nominee lien. We reject petitioner’s arguments for
several reasons.
First, petitioner concedes that he owns an interest in the
9At the hearing, petitioner did not offer any of the
information previously requested by Mr. Penny and Revenue Officer
Baustert regarding petitioner’s claim that his siblings had an
interest in the Claremore property. The silence of petitioner’s
siblings undermines petitioner’s claim that each of them owns an
interest in the Claremore property but does not necessarily
prevent them from asserting any ownership right that they may
have. A person who claims an ownership interest in property
subject to a Federal tax lien may bring a quiet title action to
challenge the lien against the property. See 28 U.S.C. sec. 2410
(2000). Generally, the Federal District Courts have jurisdiction
over any civil action arising under any Act of Congress providing
for internal revenue. 28 U.S.C. sec. 1340 (2000).
10Petitioner’s argument on this point is erroneous as a
matter of Oklahoma State law because the concept of nominee
ownership is recognized thereunder. When legal title to real
property is conveyed to one person and another person furnishes
the consideration for the property, a presumption arises under
Oklahoma State law that the person who furnished the funds to
purchase the property intended to acquire the equitable interest
in that property. Boatright v. Perkins, 894 P.2d 1091 (Okla.
1995). See also 60 Okla. Stat. Ann., tit. 60, sec. 137 (West
1994 & Supp. 2003), which provides that “When a transfer of real
property is made to one person, and the consideration therefor is
paid by or for another, a trust is presumed to result in favor of
the person by or for whom such payment is made.”
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011