Each tenant by the entirety is an owner, and "the title or right of neither is superior to that of the other." Barry v. Woods, 594 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tenn. 1980). The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the only alienable ownership right of a spouse in property held by the entirety is the right of survivorship:

Tennessee's Supreme Court addressed this question in another context and concluded that, "when [one spouse] transferred his interest [in a tenancy by the entirety] to his wife . . ., she became the owner in fee simple absolute, just as she would have done had he predeceased her." Barry v. Woods, 594 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Tenn. 1980) (emphasis added). Linda's transfer of her interest in the four tracts, therefore, did not actually create Smith's interest in the land any more than Linda's death would have.

By simply valuing the shares of each spouse equally, however, these factors become irrelevant and the task of valuing the respective interests of co-tenants remains possible. See Barry v. Woods, 594 S.W.2d 687, 690 (Tenn. 1980) ("We recognize that the interest of a tenant by the entirety, in legal theory, does not consist of an undivided one-half interest in property. However, for practical purposes, and especially for tax purposes, it is frequently convenient to so consider it.").

He thereby extinguished any right of survivorship which he might have had, together with his right of joint control, enjoyment and possession." Barry v. Woods, 594 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Tenn. 1980). The Court makes no findings at this time about the validity of the transfer or about Pritchard's intentions.

Transferring to Dana made the transaction more consequential, because Pritchard would have made her "the owner in fee simple absolute, just as she would have done had he predeceased her. He thereby extinguished any right of survivorship which he might have had, together with his right of joint control, enjoyment and possession." Barry v. Woods , 594 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Tenn. 1980). The Court makes no findings at this time about the validity of the transfer or about Pritchard's intentions.

As previously held by this court, "the most equitable valuation of the jointly owned entireties property, for the purposes of the exemption statutes ..., is an equal division." Hensley, 393 B.R. at 197; see also Barry v. Woods, 594 S.W.2d 687, 690 (Tenn.1980) ("We recognize that the interest of a tenant by the entirety, in legal theory, does not consist of an undivided one-half interest in property. However, for practical purposes, and especially for tax purposes, it is frequently convenient to consider it so.").

Pierce, 597 S.W.2d at 297-98; see also Griffin, 632 S.W.2d at 535 ("For many purposes, including taxation, it is frequently convenient to consider that the spouses each own fifty percent of property held by entirety, but this is not the legal theory of such ownership."); Barry v. Woods, 594 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tenn. 1980) ("It is elementary that neither tenant by the entirety owns the property alone; both are owners, and the title or right of neither is superior to that of the other."). Moreover, although not addressing the precise issue raised here, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee examined the effect of a joint debtor's death on tenants by the entireties property and the surviving party's interest and exemptions therein.

See generally, Ceppi v. Commissioner, 698 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1983) for discussion of these theories with respect to federal estate tax law. Although this Court in the past has turned to analogous federal law in construing our statutes governing gifts made in contemplation of death, it is unnecessary to do so here. See Barry v. Woods, 594 S.W.2d 687 (Tenn. 1980). According to § 67-2505(a), the gift tax applies "only to the extent" the gift to each donee exceeds $3,000.00. This language clearly evinces a legislative intent to employ the subtraction out theory in calculating the exemption under subsection (a).

For many purposes, including taxation, it is frequently convenient to consider that the spouses each own fifty percent of property held by the entirety, but this is not the legal theory of such ownership. Pierce v. Woods, 597 S.W.2d 295 (Tenn. 1980); Barry v. Woods, 594 S.W.2d 687, 690 (Tenn. 1980). It is well settled in this state that personal property as well as realty may be owned by spouses by the entirety.

The record shows that Mrs. Martin predeceased Mr. Martin, therefore making the trustees the owners of the fee. See Barry v. Woods, 594 S.W.2d 687 (Tenn. 1980); Robinson v. Trousdale Co., 516 S.W.2d 626 (Tenn. 1974).