James E. Griffin and Katrina F. Griffin, Transferees - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
          before he received the first illegal diversion of telephone                 
          commissions and incurred the related tax liabilities.11                     
               The above factors support respondent's argument that Mr.               
          Fisher intended to defraud his creditors.  Once respondent                  
          establishes the prima facie case of transferee liability, it is             
          incumbent upon petitioners to come forth and present evidence in            
          rebuttal.  Nau v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. 999, 1000-1001 (1957),              
          affd. in part and revd. in part 261 F.2d 362 (6th Cir. 1958).               
          Petitioners contend that the three parcels were originally                  
          purchased by Mr. Fisher with petitioners' money and that they               
          were always the equitable owners of the three parcels.  In                  
          essence, petitioners are arguing for a resulting trust.12  The              
          burden of proving a resulting trust rests with petitioners.                 
          Powell v. Race, 10 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1942).                                  
               The burden of establishing the existence of a resulting                
          trust is a heavy one.  In Foster v. Thornton, 179 So. 882, 891              
          (Fla. 1937), the court held that a resulting trust in real estate           

               11Regardless of when Federal taxes are actually assessed,              
          taxes are considered as due and owing, and constitute a                     
          liability, no later than the date the tax return for the                    
          particular period is required to be filed.  Hagaman v.                      
          Commissioner, 100 T.C. 180, 188 (1993).                                     
               12A resulting trust arises as a matter of law where property           
          is acquired in the name of one person or entity with                        
          consideration provided by others.  Under Florida law, once a                
          party proves that he paid the purchase price for a piece of                 
          property, a presumption arises that it was the parties' intention           
          that the individual holding legal title was to hold the property            
          in trust for the payor.  Maliski v. Maliski, 664 So. 2d 341, 342-           
          343 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).                                             

Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011