Anna Lee Locke - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
               Respondent contends that the claim arose prior to the                  
          transfer because the liability accrued on the due date of the               
          decedent's income tax return for 1982.  Petitioner asserts that             
          the claim arose after the transfer because no definitive                    
          partnership-related liability was determined at the time of the             
          transfer.  Petitioner further asserts that post-1984 case law was           
          not yet determined and that it was that case law that provided              
          the groundwork for this Court's decision which imposed the                  
          partners' tax liability.  Neither of these assertions has merit.            
          The liability for the decedent's 1982 income tax accrued on April           
          15, 1983, the due date of the return.  Swinks v. Commissioner, 51           
          T.C. 13, 17 (1968); see O'Sullivan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.              
          1994-17; LaMothe v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-63.  The                  
          transfers took place on January 10, 1986, after the decedent's              
          death.  Although the transfer must occur after the tax liability            
          accrues, the tax need not be assessed at the time of the                    
          transfer.  See O'Sullivan v. Commissioner, supra; LaMothe v.                
          Commissioner, supra.  "A transferee is liable retroactively for             
          the transferor's taxes and additions to tax in the year of the              
          transfer to the extent of assets received from the transferor,              
          even though the tax liability of the transferor was unknown at              
          the time of the transfer."  Swinks v. Commissioner, supra at 17.            
               Respondent contends that petitioner received the assets of             
          the decedent's estate without giving a reasonably equivalent                
          value in exchange.  Respondent relies on the value of the estate            




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