- 23 -
The decision in United States v. Vellalos, supra, has been the
subject of much discussion and has been generally rejected by other
District Courts in tax collection cases where the Government has
sought to foreclose on property transferred to third parties. See,
e.g., United States v. Cody, 961 F. Supp. 220 (S.D. Ind. 1997);
United States v. Kattar, 97-1 USTC par. 50,132 (D.N.H. 1996);
United States v. Smith, 950 F. Supp. 1394 (N.D. Ind. 1996); United
States v. Zuhone, 78 AFTR 2d 96-5106, 96-2 USTC par. 50,366 (C.D.
Ill. 1996); United States v. Hatfield, 77 AFTR 2d 96-1969, 96-2
USTC par. 50,342 (N.D. Ill. 1996); Flake v. United States, 76 AFTR
2d 95-6957, 95-2 USTC par. 50,588 (D. Ariz. 1995); Stoecklin v.
United States, 858 F. Supp. 167 (M.D. Fla. 1994). The District
Court for the Eastern District of California, however, approved the
reasoning of Vellalos in examining California's UFTA provisions,
but held for the Government on other grounds. United States v.
Wright, 76 AFTR 2d 95-7526, 96-1 USTC par. 50,005 (E.D. Cal. 1995),
affd. without published opinion 87 F.3d 1325 (9th Cir. 1996).
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court to which
an appeal in this case lies, recognized the issue raised in
Vellalos, but found it did not have the occasion to address it
(although the court did conclude that the UFTA contained a claim
extinguishment provision). United States v. Bacon, 82 F.3d 822
8(...continued)
provisions therein is subsequent to the date of the transfer
involved in the instant case.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011