Laura A. Loveland Espinosa - Page 23




                                       - 23 -                                         
          to his 1980 tax year, they are likewise the sole potential source           
          for the alleged overpayment.  We find that Mr. Espinosa’s status            
          was and is that of a debtor to the IRS.                                     
               The above-quoted stipulation characterizing the IRS as a               
          creditor of Mr. Espinosa at the time of the transfer is likewise            
          sufficient to establish the second element, which requires the              
          IRS’s claim to have arisen prior to the transfer.  In addition,             
          an identical result would be demanded, regardless of the                    
          stipulation, by existing law.  Tax liabilities accrue on the due            
          date of the tax return, and if such liabilities are not paid at             
          that time, the IRS is considered to be a creditor as of the close           
          of the applicable tax period.  See Swinks v. Commissioner, 51               
          T.C. 13, 17 (1968); Locke v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-541;             
          O’Sullivan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-17; LaMothe v.                  
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-63.  Here, since the transfer in              
          July of 1990 took place more than 4 years after Mr. Espinosa’s              
          tax return was due for the most recent of the tax periods upon              
          which transferee liability is based, the IRS’ claim predated the            
          transfer by a wide margin.                                                  
               The third requirement, that the transferor must have                   
          received no reasonably equivalent value in exchange, is once                
          again established by a stipulation of the parties:  “The transfer           
          of the Lidak stock was made for love and affection.  The parties            
          stipulate that love and affection is not adequate consideration.”           






Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011