- 15 -
notes created, but that interest income was imputed by the CPAs
that prepared the returns on these due to/due from accounts.”
Respondent counters petitioner’s argument by noting that the
$286,737.27 payment or transfer came from JCC and not the Johnson
Corp., the subsidiary of JCC to which petitioner had advanced
funds. JCC, however, was merely a holding company, and the
Johnson Corp. and the other consolidated subsidiaries of JCC were
the operating companies through which the corporate business was
transacted. Significantly, the asserted transferee liability is
for the consolidated JCC group, another factor that militates
against respondent’s argument.
Finally, it appears that the amount of interest income
reported by petitioner quantitatively supports a $286,737.27 debt
due to petitioner. If, for example, the $25,924 of interest
income represented an interest rate of 10 percent, the amount due
to petitioner would approximate $286,737.27.
On this record, petitioner has shown that there was a debt
due him from the JCC corporation(s) at the time of the transfer.
With that finding, we next consider whether the satisfaction of
that debt due petitioner was “adequate consideration.”
Under Texas law, “value” is given for a transfer if, in
exchange for the transfer, property is transferred or an
antecedent debt is satisfied. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. sec.
24.006(a)(Vernon 1987). Respondent argues that, even if JCC’s
payment satisfied an antecedent debt in an amount that was
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