U. S. v. Wurdemann 663 F.2d 50, 48
A.F.T.R.2d 81-6122, 81-2 USTC P 9757 C.A.Minn., 1981. Decided Nov. 4, 1981
PRIOR HISTORY: U.S. v. Wurdemann, 1981 WL 1772, 47 A.F.T.R.2d
81-1295, 81-1 USTC P 9353 (D.Minn. Mar. 6, 1981) (No. 6-78-493) SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Declined to Follow by: U.S. v.
Vellalos, 780 F.Supp. 705, 69 A.F.T.R.2d 92-643, 92-1 USTC P 50,227 (D.Hawaii
Jan. 10, 1992) (No. CIV. 91-00068 HMF) Disagreement Recognized by: Bresson v. C.I.R., 111 T.C. No.
6, 111 T.C. 172, Tax Ct. Rep. (CCH) 52,839, Tax Ct. Rep. Dec. (RIA) 111.6
(U.S.Tax Ct. Aug. 19, 1998) (No. 22824-96) [*50] COUNSEL: Patrick J. OMera, St. Louis Park,
Minn. (argued), John A. Miller, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellants Marjorie A.
Wurdemann Robertson, William H. Wurdemann, John H. Wurdemann and Peter A.
Wurdemann. Melvin Clark (argued), John F. Murray, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen.,
Michael L. Paup, Richard Farber, Joan I. Oppenheimer, Attys., Tax Div., Dept.
of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee; Thomas K. Berg, U. S. Atty., Minneapolis,
Minn., of counsel. PER CURIAM. Marjorie A. Wurdemann appeals from the judgment of the district
court, the Honorable Edward J. Devitt presiding, entered against her for income
taxes due for the years 1960 through 1965 in the amount of $31,761.96 and
setting aside as fraudulent the transfer of a piece of real estate, dated
December 31, 1968, from Marjorie A. Wurdemann, individually, to herself as
trustee of a trust established for the benefit of her children. We affirm. On December 16, 1968, the Internal Revenue Service sent Marjorie
and Arthur Wurdemann, husband and wife, a statutory notice of deficiency
regarding their income tax liability for the income tax years 1960, 1961 and
1962. At that time their tax returns for the years 1963 through 1965 were also
being audited. Assessment of the 1960 through 1962 deficiency was stayed by the
Wurdemanns filing of a petition in the United States Tax Court.[FN1]
On December 31, 1968, Marjorie Wurdemann conveyed title to a piece of property,
known as the Morris farm, to herself in her capacity as trustee for the benefit
of her children.[FN2] The property was mortgaged to the Morris County State
Bank in August of 1971. Tax deficiencies totalling $31,697.11 for the periods
1960 through 1962 and 1963 through 1965 were assessed as of October 16, 1970,
and September 24, 1971. In March of 1973 Mrs. Wurdemann, acting in an
individual capacity, listed the farm with a real estate company and shortly
thereafter executed an earnest money contract for sale of the farm with Duane
and Helen Kolden. FN1. Arthur Wurdemann died on February 28,
1970, and was dismissed as a party to the tax court proceedings. FN2. The trust instrument was executed on
December 31, 1968, but was not filed until August 30, 1971. Because of the outstanding tax assessments the Koldens brought an
action for specific performance in state court, and the Morris County State
Bank foreclosed upon its mortgage on January 23, 1974. The Koldens paid that
portion of the contract price sufficient to satisfy the mortgage lien to the
bank and paid the balance of the contract price into the Stevens County Court
pending the outcome of this proceeding.
We find the statute of limitations argument to be without merit.
It is well settled (T)he United States is not bound by state statutes
of limitation or subject to the defense of laches in enforcing its rights
United States v. Fernon, 640 F.2d 609, 612 (5th Cir. 1981) quoting United
States v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414,
416, 60 S.Ct. 1019, 1020, 84 L.Ed. 1283 (1940). Wurdemann argues that the facts do not support the district courts
finding of a fraudulent transfer. The record clearly demonstrates substantial
evidence supporting the district courts finding. In addition the
district court found Wurdemanns testimony not to be credible. The
factual determinations of the district court cannot be set aside upon appeal
unless shown to be clearly erroneous. Lindsay v. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft
Corp.,
485 F.2d 1288, 1289 (8th Cir. 1973). In light of the circumstances surrounding this transaction and the
strong evidence relating to Mrs. Wurdemanns financial condition at
the time of the transaction, along with all evidence of the pending tax
liability, the district courts finding that the conveyance was
fraudulent is fully supported by the evidence and is not clearly erroneous. The judgment is affirmed. |