- 4 -
therefrom, in the light most favorable to the opposing party.
Naftel v. Commissioner, supra at 529.
In their above-referenced motion for partial summary
judgment, petitioners advance two arguments. They first contend
that the Court's decision in docket No. 15954-94 is dispositive
on the issue of estate tax liability not only with respect to the
estate but also with respect to them as transferees. In short,
petitioners argue that they cannot be liable for the estate tax
deficiency because the estate was found not liable for such
deficiency.
This argument is without merit and must be rejected. A
finding that a statute of limitation precludes collection of a
tax does not equate to an abatement of such tax. Campbell v.
Holt, 115 U.S. 620 (1885); Lucia v. United States, 474 F.2d 565
(5th Cir. 1973); City Natl. Bank v. Commissioner, 55 F.2d 1073
(5th Cir 1932); Dillman v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 797, 802 (1975).
In other words, it is the remedy for collecting a tax, not the
right to collect such tax, that is destroyed by a statute of
limitation. Once a remedy has been destroyed by operation of
law, however, the right remains enforceable if there is an
alternative remedy. The principles of transferee liability
provide respondent with such alternative remedy. Stated simply,
the Court's holding in Estate of Mickler v. Commissioner, docket
No. 15954-94, did nothing more than preclude respondent's attempt
to collect a tax deficiency from the estate on grounds that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011