A Use Tax is a tax on the Transfer of Title. First of all the mower is not allodial in regards to property that is impossible, unless you are a king. It is allodial in terms of estate as a Fee Simple. The mower is a THING. The Use in the Thing is to cut the grass - typical use.Originally Posted by allodial
In a narrow sense considering the word 'use':
1. You have a lawn mower in allodium? You let your neighbor 'use' it. If its yours do can you ever 'use' it?
2. Isn't "use" tax a tax for gaining from taking into possession that which does not belong to you?
If Bob is the surety and insurer for an aircraft and Roy borrows the aircraft then isn't Roy borrowing both Bob's aircraft and to some extent Bob's suretyship? When Bob flies it, Bob is not necessarily 'use'-ing the aircraft because it is Bob's.
If you use a name, title or the like that belongs to someone else, and you gain from that, then is it all that far-fetched that the one to whom the name, title or the like belongs might require partaking in your gains?
Now if I am holding the Thing for my own uses in possession and I let it out to you then a TRUST forms.
You are Trustee holding the mower in Trust upon your uses for a time and you might benefit of its uses as a third party, but I have beneficial interest in the Trust because I had the possession and I TRANSFERRED it to you for a short time.
The Use in the Thing is an Estate. And since I transferred the FEE via Lease or Deed, you now have a Qualified FEE.
Perhaps the lease was a friendly loan - nevertheless - you would be entitled to the return of the full use of the mower [thing] upon your demand. That is unless you settled on certain terms. Then you must abide in those terms - covenants - such as creditor/debtor relationships.
Regarding Roy and Bob - Bob is Surety to the one he contracted himself to - Roy has no duty to assume the Surety UNLESS Bob stipulates that in the Contract he has with Roy. Bob would be a fool to let Roy use the Thing absent an agreement [typically in insurance - third party].
Roy makes a USE of the THING. Roy has the actual possession but Bob has the Right of Possession. Bob Promised in Contract to another to be Surety. Roy never promised [he was not a party to the Contract] - therefore has no liability in Bob's Contractual obigations. Bob would be a fool to let Roy fly absent a Surety Understanding the Use whilst the Thing was in Roy's Possession.
The Lender [Bank] requires the Borrower to keep insurance on the Thing [house] whilst the Borrower is with the obligation - meaning the Borrower might lease the house to a tenant - or he might actually reside in the house [thing] for the Use consistent with Residential Property.
Regarding Use of Property belonging to another - SPOT ON. The Cestui Que Use [he who created the Use] wants a Return from the Trustee. You are spot on.
Shalom,
MJ
Reply With Quote