Facts In the year 1932, the plaintiff Mrs., Crane benefited from an apartment lot and building upon her husbands death. The lot and building had been subjected to a mortgage that consisted of 7,042.50 interest in default and a 255,000.00 principal debt and later on Crane benefited from proceeds of the sale. Issues 1) Is there a provision in Tax law that allows a plaintiff to original basis 2) Is there a provision in Appellate law that allows debt assumed to be passed on to the plaintiff Analysis The IRS came up with the argument that the building had depreciated and Ms. Crane did not mention that in the taxes. Therefore, the building lost value when it was sold and she gained 30000. The 162 (b) section affirms that during inheritance, debt and tax can be incurred by the plaintiff. The Tax Court established that Ms. Crane had inherited equity. This refers to difference of the value of the building and the land, which is in excess of the mortgage value. However, the Appellate court reversed the ruling and ruled that she had inherited property and not equity. This means that Crane obtained an income equal to the debts total amount that was assumed by the purchaser. Thereafter, the