- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011