- 32 -
petitioner is the transferee of property of a taxpayer, the first
question we must address is whether there is any basis in law for
respondent’s claim that petitioner has some liability to respondent
on account thereof.
III. California Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act
A. Introduction
As the majority acknowledges, with the exception of proving
that the taxpayer (Jaussaud) was liable for the tax, respondent has
the burden of proving all of the elements necessary to establish
petitioner’s liability as the transferee of property of the
taxpayer. Sec. 6902(a); Rule 142(d). The majority is also correct
in stating that we must examine the law of California to determine
petitioner’s liability, if any. Majority op. p. 13. Respondent
argues, and petitioner and the majority agree, that the applicable
law of California is the California Uniform Fraudulent Transfer
Act, Cal. Civ. Code sec. 3439 through 3439.12 (West 1997)
(hereafter, CUFTA and section 3439.xx, respectively). The CUFTA
provides remedies to creditors with respect to fraudulent transfers
made by debtors. Section 3439.04 defines a fraudulent transfer,
and section 3439.07 provides remedies to creditors. Those remedies
delimit both the right of the creditor to demand something from a
transferee and the offsetting duty (liability) of the transferee to
comply (that duty hereafter being referred to as transferee
liability). Section 3439.09 sets forth certain time limits within
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011