TP Fails To Keep Property on Invalid Assessment Argument

[BunkyPrewster]

My question is, if Lemmawayne passed away in August of 2005, and the trust was created a week before that, why did the IRS take action against her home in 2001?

"The evidence indicates that both the Austin Street and Holly Road properties were conveyed to Investment Services in August 2005. The IRS filed its tax liens against the properties in 2001 (D.E. 28-3; D.E. 28-5), and Burnett admitted during his deposition that had he received mail from the IRS for a "number of years," possibly as early as 2001. (D.E. 28-14 at 52-53.) Thus, the transfers occurred after Burnett became aware of potential IRS legal action. It therefore appears that Burnett acted in anticipation of his tax liabilities. See Towe, 791 F. Supp. at 1457 (finding transfer in anticipation of tax liabilities because taxpayer was aware that his records were being audited at the time of the transfer)."

[bmielke]

My question is, if Lemmawayne passed away in August of 2005, and the trust was created a week before that, why did the IRS take action against her home in 2001?

"The evidence indicates that both the Austin Street and Holly Road properties were conveyed to Investment Services in August 2005. The IRS filed its tax liens against the properties in 2001 (D.E. 28-3; D.E. 28-5), and Burnett admitted during his deposition that had he received mail from the IRS for a "number of years," possibly as early as 2001. (D.E. 28-14 at 52-53.) Thus, the transfers occurred after Burnett became aware of potential IRS legal action. It therefore appears that Burnett acted in anticipation of his tax liabilities. See Towe, 791 F. Supp. at 1457 (finding transfer in anticipation of tax liabilities because taxpayer was aware that his records were being audited at the time of the transfer)."

They have like 10 years to collect. So they would be giid until 2011 for 2001 debts.

[BunkyPrewster]

My question is, if Lemmawayne passed away in August of 2005, and the trust was created a week before that, why did the IRS take action against her home in 2001?

"The evidence indicates that both the Austin Street and Holly Road properties were conveyed to Investment Services in August 2005. The IRS filed its tax liens against the properties in 2001 (D.E. 28-3; D.E. 28-5), and Burnett admitted during his deposition that had he received mail from the IRS for a "number of years," possibly as early as 2001. (D.E. 28-14 at 52-53.) Thus, the transfers occurred after Burnett became aware of potential IRS legal action. It therefore appears that Burnett acted in anticipation of his tax liabilities. See Towe, 791 F. Supp. at 1457 (finding transfer in anticipation of tax liabilities because taxpayer was aware that his records were being audited at the time of the transfer)."

They have like 10 years to collect. So they would be giid until 2011 for 2001 debts.

Okay, But I took that to mean they filed the liens IN 2001, when it was still her property? Are you saying that it was done retroactively?

[The Observer]

My question is, if Lemmawayne passed away in August of 2005, and the trust was created a week before that, why did the IRS take action against her home in 2001?

"The evidence indicates that both the Austin Street and Holly Road properties were conveyed to Investment Services in August 2005. The IRS filed its tax liens against the properties in 2001 (D.E. 28-3; D.E. 28-5), and Burnett admitted during his deposition that had he received mail from the IRS for a "number of years," possibly as early as 2001. (D.E. 28-14 at 52-53.) Thus, the transfers occurred after Burnett became aware of potential IRS legal action. It therefore appears that Burnett acted in anticipation of his tax liabilities. See Towe, 791 F. Supp. at 1457 (finding transfer in anticipation of tax liabilities because taxpayer was aware that his records were being audited at the time of the transfer)."

They have like 10 years to collect. So they would be giid until 2011 for 2001 debts.

Okay, But I took that to mean they filed the liens IN 2001, when it was still her property? Are you saying that it was done retroactively?

When the IRS records a notice of tax lien, it is not recorded against a specific piece of property or asset - it is recorded as a notification that the named taxpayer has a tax lien against them that attaches to all property owned at the time that the lien arose or is aquired by the taxpayer after the lien arises.

The exception to this is when the IRS determines that the taxpayer has transferred an asset to another person that they consider to be fraudulent or otherwise an attempt to evade the attachment of the lien. The IRS will fiel a nominee lien (based on the underlying original lien) that identifies the receiver of the asset and specifying that the lien is attaching to that asset.

I don't have enough information to determine why the IRS filed liens in 2001, and the court's narrative above seems to have gaps about what happened when. But another possibility is that the mother had tax liabilities as well and thus the liens that were filed then were against her. The other possibility is that the government determined that the properties were never really the mother's to begin with in the first place and were held by her as a cover for the taxpayer.