1. "Deeding and Selling"
Posted by Stefani on Aug-15th-02 at 2:45 PM

On page 28 in Lizzie Borden: Past and Present by Leonard Rebello, he states that on July 15, 1892, Emma L. and Lizzie A. Borden sold the Ferry Street Home to Andrew J. Borden for $1.00.

On page 30, it says that Andrew gave Emma and Lizzie $5,000 for the Ferry Street property.

So my question is this: is the deeding for $1.00 done to avoid paying taxes on the sale of $5,000? If so, then every time in this case where it says that a property was deeded for $1.00, are we to surmise that there was more than this amount of money changing hands?

RE: Emma and Lizzie "deeding" 92 Second St. to Dunn on July 3, 1918 for $1.00 and "other valuable considerations" (p. 307, Rebello).

This was/is an old, old trick by the rich and powerful to keep their property taxes low (see reference in AR Brown). I last heard of it in the 1960s - selling property for "$1 and goodwill".

If the property is assessed for taxes by the SELLING PRICE, then you'll pay next to nothing. That's why there is an "objective evaluation" nowadays. But don't think that these tricks don't go on!

A lot of these Borden land transactions show a sale of $1.00.

http://ccbit.cs.umass.edu/lizzie/undergr/modules212/module_2/source/doc/sales.html

Yet some don't. So confusing!

Here is the legal description of 92 Second Street from the Registry of Deeds. Note that it says Andrew paid $10,000 for it.  That seems like a lot of money for 1872.


Transcription from the Registry of Probate and the Registry of Deeds for Bristol County in Taunton, Massachusetts.

RECORD OF LAND TRANSACTION

Recorded: 4/30/1872 at Bristol County (TCH)
Vol # 322 Pg # 120

Grantee:Andrew J. Borden Res.: Fall River
Grantor: Charles Trafton Res.: Fall River

Located in: Fall River Cost: $10,000.00
Date Purchased: 4/26/1872


Description of property: Beginning at SW corner of land of the heirs of Ed.P. Buffington on the easterly side of Second Street, thence running southerly on Second St. 4 rods of land of Andrew J. Borden, thence turning at right angle and running easterly by land of said Borden 7 1/2 rods to land of John C. Milne, thence turning at right angle and running northerly by land of Milne 4 rods to other land of John Milne, thence turning at right angle and running westerly by land of Milne and land of Buffington 7 1/2 rods to point of beginning; containing 30 rods of land.

And this, the actual record of the "sale" of Ferry street to Lizzie and Emma.

There's a couple of things interesting about this information:

[Please...these questions open to Anyone...]
Was it illegal to make false claim as to selling or purchase price on property?
Did the decision to claim $1, depend on the honesty of one of the parties to the sale, or whether they were prominent (And therefore needed to be squeaky-clean)? (Because, as noted, sometimes they claimed full price...or maybe even fudged THAT figure...)
Did Mass. have a tax on these transactions?
Was there an U.S. Income Tax in effect in 1845 thru 1892?
Did the City or county just look the other way, in order to effect more business transactions?

Then there is the "MILNE" info.
It had been supposed (by others) that Andrew bought that property because it had once been in his family's holdings, and he wanted to re-acquire it, as well as having the belief that someday Second Street would become more commercial and the value would increase.  (That sure would have been a Long Term investment--Andrew'd be seeing 20 years into the future?)

Anyway, Hoffman has a blurb on Milne, for what it's worth.  (does that land description imply AJB already owned some of that land?  ...I have a little trouble with legal land descriptions...and "Milne" property would be, as we call it, "Kelly" 1892?)

Yesterday In Old Fall River, pg. 243-4:

"Milne, John C.   (1824--?)
John C. Milne was the editor of the Fall River Daily News.  He and Frank L. Almy posted $500 bail for John Vinnicum Morse to guarantee that Morse would appear as a witness at the preliminay hearing of Lizzie Borden.

Milne was born in Millfield, Scotland, on May 18, 1824.  He moved to Nova Scotia and was trained in the printing trade as a compositor.  By 1845 Milne was a resident of Fall River and that year started the Fall River Weekly News with partner Frank L. Almy.  Milne sat for five terms on the Fall River City Council and served in the Massachusetts state legislature from 1884- 1888.  He married Abby A. Gifford of Fall River in 1849 and had nine children."

(Message last edited Aug-16th-02  3:48 AM.)

Yes, $10,000 is a LOT of MONEY for that house and yard in 1870.
I can't relate "30 rods" to square footage or acres. Could it be for much more land than just 92 Second St? The house goes back to 1840s, post and beam construction (still lasts after all the years!).
Maybe shrewd Andy also got land he sold off?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

"HISTORY OF THE INCOME TAX IN THE U.S.

The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an "inheritance" tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history--more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. His powers and authority remain very much the same today.

In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations...."

--Well, I learned something by *looking it up*, as our dad used to say.  I had thought income tax didn't come about until the 20's.  (Our mom used to say "look it up" also)...we heard it so often I began to be suspicious they were too lazy to explain it to me...BUT, it turns out they were teaching us How To Look Things Up!--Grateful!

According to Harry's link to the converter for cost of an item then vs. cost now at http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Andrew payed an ordinary amount of money for 92 Second Street. Here are the results.

What cost $10000 in 1872 would cost $142,080.24 in 2001.

Equivalently, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2001 and 1872,
they would cost you $10000 and $703.83 respectively.



(Message last edited Aug-16th-02  11:09 PM.)

Sorry, don't have anything to add, but, what interesting reading here!