Your distinction between “ownership” and “control” is arbitrary.
What practical “ownership” exists when you must pay a tax for the privilege of retaining possession?
Ownership means you can sell, rent, or hypothecate an asset with no further permission, as long as you do not exceed the police powers (eg; zoning, most typically) you should have known about when you acquired the asset, in most cases.
It is true that the state can do all those things to your asset, but for the moment, they have to insert at least one legal proceeding into the chain of events.
The statement “you can’t tax something without owning it” as written is kind of silly in my view because you cannot tax yourself for your own ownership of an asset. Well, I suppose you can, but it would be kind of meaningless.
I object to the blurring of coherent meaning. It’s like calling homosexual unions “marriages”. It’s like calling what has been done to healthcare “reform”.