Hmm, . . . is cash tangible property or intangible property?
Well, . . . a quick trip around the internet suggests that the question is not entirely settled.
Over at PacAccountants.com they note that International Accounting Standards (IASs) define the term "intangible asset" but fail to define the term "tangible asset".
* * * * * quote * * * * *
An intangible asset is an identifiable non-monetary asset without physical substance.
This definition describes three main characteristics of an intangible asset which are as follows:
__It must be identifiable i.e. we can distinguish between one asset and the other
__It is a non-monetary asset i.e. other than cash and cash equivalents
__It is without physical substance
Looking at the definition of Intangible asset we can confirm that Cash is NOT an intangible asset as IASs has explicitly excluded it from its definition.
* * * * endquote * * * * *
Elsewhere, for example on Wikipedia there is this comment within an extended definition of "tangible property":
"A unique category of property is money, which in some legal systems is treated as tangible property and in others as intangible property. Whilst in most countries legal tender is expressed in the form of intangible property ('The Treasury of Country X hereby promises to pay to the bearer on demand....'), in practice bank notes are now rarely ever redeemed in any country, which has led to bank notes and coins being classified as tangible property in most modern legal systems."
Meanwhile over at answers.google.com there's a discussion over the meaning of tangible property, and a distinction between "tangible property" and "tangible personal property" with specific reference to probate matters.
One conclusion:
"Cash used to be classified as an intangible (a piece of paper that could be exchanged for a specific amount of gold, having value only because everyone agrees to the exchange rate). Now most legal systems classify it as tangible, since money is rarely exchanged for gold.
A bank account holding the cash would be intangible."
Oh wait! The Court somewhere in Indiana also has an opinion, documented at justia.com.
* * * * * quote * * * * *
The question presented by this appeal is whether U.S. currency is "tangible" or "intangible" personal property within the meaning of an Indiana statute that places some of the property of a bankrupt or other judgment debtor beyond the reach of his creditors.
<lots of legal gobbledy gook>
. . . Our analysis points to classifying cash as intangible property. . . . If as Oakley argues $4000 in cash but not in a bank account is exempt, debtors in Indiana who face collection actions will be quick to convert their bank accounts to cash, a danger recognized by the Indiana Supreme Court in a related context in In re Zumbrun, supra, 626 N.E.2d at 455. They are less likely to convert cash to furniture or clothes that they don't need as much as they need the cash.
<more gobbledy gook>
. . . Because money in whatever form; whether cash or an invisible, a disembodied, financial asset; is a medium of exchange rather than a useful good (with the irrelevant exception of money that has become a collector's item), it is what creditors want to levy on. Clothes, furniture, and other personal possessions are useful goods that are indispensable (up to a point; but remember that the exemption for tangible property is modest) to the debtor but of little value to creditors, who would have to convert them to money to recover their loan and would incur heavy transaction costs, relative to the value of the goods, in the process.
* * * * endquote * * * * *
i.e. Money is intangible property.
n.b. All boldface above added by DonDiego
CONCLUSION
DonDiego would suggest cash is, in fact, tangible property, . . . as in modern society it no longer, e.g.since 1974 in the USA, represents a claim on a specified quantity of gold or silver, . . . because it is recognized as a medium of exchange in-and-of itself.
Nonetheless, DonDiego recognizes Officers of the Courts and Legislators may classify cash as they wish for purposes of maximizing/minimizing claims of whichever creditors, Governments, debtors, or other claimants are in-favor/out-of-favor.
It's a nasty world out there. DonDiego avoids it as much as he can.
