- 9 -
subject matter of the gift. Frazier v. Okla. Gas & Elec. Co., 63
P.2d 11, 13 (Okla. 1936). In order to divest himself of
ownership and dominion over the subject matter of the gift,
petitioner (the donor) must legally own the property in issue.
See Pettit v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 634, 639 (1974) (“A ‘gift’
has been generally defined as a voluntary transfer of property by
the owner to another without consideration therefor.” (Emphasis
added.)). Beneficial ownership is required. Bare legal title
does not control. See Estate of Davenport v. Commissioner, 184
F.3d 1176, 1182-1185 (10th Cir. 1999), affg. T.C. Memo. 1997-390;
sec. 25.2511-1(g)(1), Gift Tax Regs.
Respondent contends that petitioner did not own the
materials relating to his defense of McVeigh in his trial for the
Oklahoma City bombing and thus could not have divested himself of
ownership in order to effect a valid inter vivos gift of those
materials. Petitioners assert that, under Oklahoma law,
petitioner legally owned the materials in issue and that the
materials constituted petitioner’s personal property.
The parties have not cited, and we have not found, any case
in Oklahoma or any other jurisdiction that addresses directly the
ownership of materials in the possession of an attorney that are
related to the representation of his client. The ownership of
client files is apparently an issue of first impression under
Oklahoma law. However, Oklahoma State law in related areas
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008