- 42 -
Petitioners contend that they moved their money from place
to place with no fraudulent intent. Petitioners contend that, if
they had wanted to conceal the transfers, they would have had
Mrs. Pert withdraw the cash and give it to Mr. Pert. We disagree
that the existence of another way to conceal transfers means that
a party did not try to conceal transfers.
Petitioners point out that respondent did not analyze Mr.
Pert’s net worth to show that he benefited from the cash
withdrawals. The statute requires respondent to prove that
transfers occurred, but it does not require the creditor to
perform a net worth analysis of the transferee. Fla. Stat. Ann.
secs. 726.102(12), 726.105(1)(a) and (2) (West 1988).
d. Anticipated Lawsuit
A transfer in anticipation of a lawsuit is a badge of fraud.
See sec. 4, par. 6(d), Comment to Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance
Act, p. 655 (West 1985). Respondent's revenue agent interviewed
Mrs. Pert soon after Mr. Riffe died. Kaltenbach referred Mrs.
Pert to a tax attorney. At a conference on June 5, 1991, the
revenue agent gave Mrs. Pert's tax attorney a copy of a detailed
report with his recommended adjustments to tax and additions to
tax for 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989. Mrs. Pert did not agree with
the recommendations. We conclude that Mrs. Pert anticipated that
the IRS would determine that she and Mr. Riffe owed taxes when
she began transferring assets to Mr. Pert.
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011