Who am I?  I am a former tax attorney in the investment banking industry.  I’m not sure what I intend to do with this but I’ll probably post things that capture my fancy; or if I’m lazy, I won’t post anything at all.

Should I regard this as tax advice?  In no, way, shape or form should any of the contents of this blog be regarded as tax advice.  Tax advice would and should be tailored to your specific situation.  Without knowing your specific facts/issues, this is useless as tax advice.

How scholarly is this?  Oh, you’re so incorrigible.  This is not scholarly at all.  Since I’m on my own, my ability to do research is incredibly limited.  At this point, looking at the federal register and doing broad internet searches are my tools.  Consequently, sometimes I might say something with no backup reference at all and most of the time I’m just hypothecating.


3 thoughts on “About

  1. On your post regarding tax ownership, your example of marking a dollar bill or share certificate may over simplify the issue. Either a dollar or a share of stock held in custody within a fungible pool might not change tax ownership of the property notwithstanding that a different bill or certificate might be returned to the owner.

  2. Definitely simplistic and more of a thought experiment. In your more refined case, i think the main point is that if something is held “in custody within a fungible pool” and it is required to be done so, there is something there over which the custodian doesn’t have dominion over. Or, to put it differently, every single asset, fungible or not, should generally be considered owned by someone. If assets are freely given to the counterparty with complete dominion over it, then ownership is transferred.

    If assets are given to the custodian, who is not given complete dominion over it, then you have to decide who owns it. In the case of the custodian, there is a pool of assets (fungible or not) which is owned by somebody. Because the owner of the account is the one who has control over disposition whatever is actually in the account, then the party own transfers it to the custodian is the owner.

    Therefore, yes, it was simplistic in the sense that you are not denied ownership just because you are not getting back property that you have given. Rather, it should fully read that you are the owner if you have control over disposition of property that can be specifically identified.

    In the examples posed, the stock/money loan, the lender retains no control over disposition of the property given nor any replacement property. The person that gives property to a custodian expects the property (or “like” property) that they have given to the custodian to be at their beck and call.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s