- 9 -
the transferee. See Hagaman v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 180, 188
(1993); Schad v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 609, 614 (1986), affd.
without published opinion 827 F.2d 774 (11th Cir. 1987); Wiltzius
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-117. Under Florida’s Uniform
Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), effective January 1, 1988, a
transfer is fraudulent as to present and future creditors if the
debtor made the transfer “With actual intent to hinder, delay, or
defraud any creditor of the debtor”. Fla. Stat. sec.
726.105(1)(a) (1988). The UFTA defines “creditor” as “a person
who has a claim”, and “debtor” as “a person who is liable on a
claim.” Fla. Stat. sec. 726.102(4), (6) (1988).
Petitioner concedes that he is precluded from challenging
the tax liability of ACT as determined in Association Cable TV,
Inc. v. Commissioner, supra. See Krueger v. Commissioner, 48
T.C. 824 (1967) (decisions entered by the Tax Court determining
deficiencies against taxpayers are res judicata as to the
taxpayers’ liabilities in a later action involving transferee
liability). Petitioner does not dispute that respondent has
failed to collect the liability from ACT. Petitioner does not
dispute that he was an initial transferee of ACT and that as a
result of the distributions of November 7, 1988, he received
gross proceeds of $199,490. The critical question is whether ACT
made the transfers to petitioner with fraudulent intent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011