- 13 -
guarantor. It is obvious that if petitioner had not been a party
to the agreement, he would have remained liable to Westinghouse
for 50 percent of the unpaid debt and/or future claims by
Westinghouse. Accordingly, we hold that the $1,050,000
settlement was JCC’s property and that JCC transferred a payment
of $286,737.27 to petitioner. Having decided that a transfer
from JCC to petitioner occurred, we must now decide whether the
transfer was for adequate consideration.
We now consider, under Texas law, whether JCC received
reasonably equivalent value amounting to adequate consideration
for the amount transferred. See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. sec.
24.006(a) (West 1987); Gumm v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. at 480.
Respondent argues that petitioner received the transferred
amount without consideration or for less than adequate
consideration. Petitioner argues that he was owed an antecedent
debt and that the $286,737.27 payment was received in
satisfaction of that debt. A transfer that would otherwise
result in transferee liability under section 6091(a) may be
excepted from liability if the transfer was made for adequate
consideration. See Gumm v. Commissioner, supra. A similar
exception exists under TUFTA where the transferor receives
“reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for the transfer. See
Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. sec. 24.006(a) (West 1987).5 Under
5 “Reasonably equivalent value” includes a transfer that is
within the range of values for which the transferor would have
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011