- 14 -
(3) the decedent (or the decedent's estate) made the
transfer without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in
exchange for the transfer; and
(4) the debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfer or
became insolvent as a result of the transfer.
Additionally, a transferee cannot be held liable for the tax
of a transferor beyond the value of the assets received from the
transferor. Yagoda v. Commissioner, 39 T.C. 170, 185 (1962),
affd. 331 F.2d 485 (2d Cir. 1964). Therefore, respondent must
prove the actual value of the assets received rather than merely
showing that petitioner received assets of some value. Moran v.
Commissioner, 45 T.C. 528, 529-530 (1966); Scott v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1986-566.
Respondent contends that the decedent owed respondent a debt
based on the decedent's liability from the EXOCO partnership.
Petitioner argues that the decedent did not owe a debt to the
respondent because the respondent violated the procedural
requirements of TEFRA and therefore the notice was invalid. As
discussed above, the IRS did not violate the procedural
requirements of TEFRA, the notice was not invalid, and, in
accordance with the final decision of this Court in the
partnership proceeding, which gave rise to the computational
adjustment assessed against the decedent, the decedent owed a
debt to the IRS.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011