The first is more of a question than a comment. Is there a substantive difference between "bare naked title alone" and "bare legal title"?
Yes. The former could refer to illegal title as well as legal title.
Now that phrase is subject to some misinterpretation. Is the property the entire property pre-easement, or just the property made subject to the easement?
I think it’s the portion of the property subject to the easement. I don’t put a whole lot of stock into the idea that we can’t figure out basis for a portion of a property (i.e. that it would be impossible or impractical). The fact is, if we were to subdivide the easement portion off of the whole, and then sell the easement portion instead of putting an easement on it, we’d need to know the basis. I do suppose, though, that if we have numerous adjoinging parcels, bought at different times for different prices, and then we run an easement through the whole of them, maybe it’s impractical to figure out basis for the easement portion.
In any case, if you read the Scales case, the guy owned like 6,000 acres. The easement only covered 324.4 acres. The court said:
In view of these authorities and the facts that the petitioner has surrendered perpetual and complete control of the 324.4 acres involved herein to the Levee Improvement District, and that it is useless for purposes of cultivation or grazing because almost always overflowed by water, we must hold, for the purposes of this proceeding and for taxation, that the conveyance to the Levee Improvement District was tantamount to a sale and that petitioner has no beneficial interest therein.
Key word “beneficial interest: and “therein.” All in all, I think the Rules I put forth cover every situation.
I conclude it does not matter.
Very well then.