- 13 -
4. Whether the Transfer Was Made Shortly Before or Shortly
After a Substantial Debt Was Incurred
ACT transferred assets to petitioner shortly after it sold
its assets to JSL and shortly before it incurred the related tax
liabilities. See Hagaman v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. at 188
(regardless of when Federal taxes are actually assessed, taxes
are due and owing, and constitute a liability, no later than the
date the tax return for the particular period is required to be
filed); Yagoda v. Commissioner, 39 T.C. 170, 185 (1962)
(transferee is liable for all existing debts of the transferor,
“whether or not such debts had been determined, or were even
known at that time”), affd. 331 F.2d 485 (2d Cir. 1964).
Although a single factor considered in isolation may not
establish the requisite fraud to set aside a conveyance, several
of them considered together may afford a basis to infer fraud.
See Johnson v. Dowell, 592 So. 2d 1194, 1197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1992). On the basis of the several factors discussed above, and
after considering all the evidence in the record, we conclude
that respondent has established a prima facie case that ACT made
the transfers in question with fraudulent intent. Petitioner
bears the burden of rebutting the presumption. See Hagaman v.
Commissioner, supra at 189; Nau v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. 999,
1000-1001 (1957), affd. in part and revd. in part on another
ground 261 F.2d 362 (6th Cir. 1958); Gobins v. Commissioner, 18
T.C. 1159, 1169 (1952), affd. per curiam 217 F.2d 952 (9th Cir.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011