[Lawdog]

OK, for those of you who persist in being knuckleheads on this issue, here's the word from a standard reference work. I refer to The Law of Property, (2nd Edition, West Pub. 1993), by Roger A. Cunningham (Professor Emeritus, U. of Michigan School of Law), William B. Stoebuck (Professor, U. of Washington School of Law), and Dale A. Whitman (Professor, Brigham Young Univ. School of Law). Any good law library should have a copy. From section 11.9 thereof:

"Ownership of land can exist only because it is recognized and enforced by the legal institutions of the state. Hence, it is not surprising that virtually all modern governments have developed and operate systems which permit interested persons to discover who owns any parcel." p. 823

"If the owner of land purports to make two competing or inconsistent conveyances, their priority is ordinarily determined by the chronological order of their delivery. To illustrate, suppose O, who owns the land, delivers a deed to A. The next day O delivers another deed of the same land to B. A will have the title to the land and B will have nothing except a possible claim against O for fraud or on any covenants of title in the O-B deed. The same principles apply if O delivers leases, grants of easements, or any other sorts of conveyances. For example, if O gives mortgages to both A and B, the first mortgage in time will have priority, and the second in time will be junior to it.

The recording system has the rather extraordinary ability to reverse, in some situations, the results described above. The recording acts give O and his or her successors a power, under certain circumstances, to give B a conveyance which has priority over A's. If both conveyances are deeds, this means that B will have the land and A will have nothing. For this surprising result to occur, two factors must be present. First, A must have failed to record the first deed; a conveyance which is properly recorded can never be divested by the operation of the recording acts. Second, B's behavior must be such as to qualify for the protection of the act. On this point there is a good deal of variation among the states, but their statutes can be divided into three general groups. About half of the statutes protect B if he or she is a bona fide purchaser for value; they are usually called "notice" statutes, although the term is somewhat misleading since both lack of notice [of the prior conveyance] and payment of value are usually essential to B's protection. Whether B records is irrelevant under this approach. Roughly the other half of the statutes impose the same bona fide purchaser qualification, but add to it the further requirement that B record before A's deed is recorded. Since this conjures a mental picture...of A and B racing one another to the courthouse, this second group of statutes is usually called "notice-race" [or "race-notice"]. A third type of statute pays no attention to B's bona fide purchaser status, but simply defeats A if B records first. Only three states, Delaware, Louisiana and North Carolina, have acts applying this pure "race" approach to the general run of conveyances, although a few others employ it for mortgages or other special types of conveyances.

In general, no one is obliged to record anything, and there is no direct penalty if a conveyance goes unrecorded....But the recording acts provide a strong incentive for every grantee to record, for one who fails to do so is taking the risk that his or her grantor will make a subsequent conveyance that will diminish or destroy the efficacy of the prior transfer." pp. 825-826

So don't take moronic risks. Record your deed.

As to the tax issue: I defy anyone to cite me any legal authority (statute, case law, etc.) that stands for the proposition that the ability of the government to tax your land is contingent upon you first recording it with them.