- 15 -
deficiency were not sent to Mr. Espinosa’s last known address,
they are invalid and cannot be used to establish Mr. Espinosa’s
tax liability.
Petitioner further asserts that because no deficiency
notices were issued with respect to the returns filed by Mr.
Espinosa in 1993, and because the period for issuing such notices
has expired, Mr. Espinosa cannot be said to owe taxes beyond the
figures reflected in those returns. Since the amount so shown as
owing is less than the alleged value of Mr. Espinosa’s remaining
assets on the date of the transfer, petitioner contends that
there can be no finding of constructive fraud. Petitioner also
argues that the requisite intent for actual fraud is lacking.
Lastly, petitioner maintains that the provision for
extinguishment set forth in the California Uniform Fraudulent
Transfer Act governs so as to bar respondent’s assertion of
transferee liability.
We conclude that the purported lack of a deficiency
determination or assessment against the transferor poses no
barrier to an assertion of transferee liability. We further
agree with respondent that the transfer to petitioner was
fraudulent under section 3439.05 of the California Civil Code,
and we find that petitioner has failed to establish that Mr.
Espinosa is not presently liable for the underlying unpaid taxes.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011