and the united states was not entitled to the summary judgment as a matter of law and briefly the town at least in the context of their employment with alpine boys ranch were advised that should a lawsuit come because of always being there that they would not be covered by the insurance policy there so they needed this find some way to protect their assets they sought advice and counsel in one nine ninety three they set up a living trust and within a living trust placed some of their assets including the two properties that are at issue in this case later on they found out that living trust consideration that was given was love and affection well that's i mean i can i can give somebody a million dollars and say that i got love and affection back that doesn't mean i don't have a gift tax obligation i mean i have to say the whole picture i have here is people that think they're not subject to the tax laws and that's not a very persuasive picture well preserved i mean they didn't during the years in question here and it's not before it's just kind of a given as what we have but i don't know if any of your subsequent they've ever responded to the tax was either in one nine hundred ninety five your honor there was a tax liability of under purpose of setting up this trust was to insulate assets from execution by somebody who has a legal claim against your client i mean doesn't seem to me there's a whole lot more that needs to be proven past that admission is there your honor ther matter because they still have other assets available what we're talking about is the fraudulent transfer act and the ability to go back and say ok there was this transfer somewhere in time and now we're going to in most cases you're fighting over whether the transfer has some valid other reason and one of the condition you look to is whether there were other assets still available but you have come in and told us the whole purpose for this transfer is to get it out of the wave of attachment by creditors i don't think there's a lot more that needs to be shown after that your honor what the statute requires is that the creditor must exist at that time and what they were talking about this sometime in the future they may face a lawsuit that's no different th someone taking out fire insurance on their home and then if a fire occurs they're coming back and saying well that was fraud because you must've reasonably known that at some time he would have a fire in your home or a truck driver who sees the accidents every day of the road every day on the road and knows that he has a potential that some day he may be in an accident may be sued he has liability insurance what is preventing him from taking other assets and placing them in a trust for the benefit of the children solemn the second issue that we deal with it deals with altering the nominee and under that theory they must prove under state law the other entity was an nominee or alter ego the court in this case did not apply washington law the government has conceded that washington law is unsettled on the preliminary to the federal courts consideration of the underlying federal constitutional questions that is especially desirable where the questions of state law are and mess with federal question so here we have a situation where the that issue was that one of the properties involved here that they had a secured claiming instance the bankruptcy court looked at the and specifically th estate of the debtor they did have this your client's here and they did have a lease and they have to object here it is not there why should it be a problem to them of this foreclosed upon because it's not there well that's the issue of that's a very good question your honor because as the court found the only the united states did not mean the trust as party who they named was first solvent bannister as trustee when mr bannister tried to appear and defend himself the courts said well under seat pope the trustee doesn't have any authority so you can't represent yourself so you can't be party to this but he had been named as a party a was entered against him even though he tried to then later the court looked at it and said well really the real party in interest here is beaver valley trust i don't know why the united states yet of the tax world for the purposes the washington state statute which is really what was the source of the question identifying is whether a future theoretical creditor or a creditor sufficiently existence so you can identify an interest that the law is intended to protect whatever the tax law says by the time of the transfer in october of one thousand nine hundred five the government's position is it had a creditors interest sufficient such that it was protected by the i'd like to be that happy situation myself but i haven't quite attain transfers the i suppose high watermark of the bankruptcy court determination was apparently in response to the motion to lift the stay by washington mutual with regard to their owing in ninety five taxes for ninety four been paid taxes for ninety five as we heard as a matter of law would not be doing only until april of ninety six so at the time to transfer the properties the ira asked the united states were it's not accurate to say th the you know i can address that that is what it shows here but the district court it fined and the iris admitted they were not creditors at the time of the transfer just to help you out in three to sixteen of the order of record six page sixteen which is page fourteen of the order there is a sentence slightly more than halfway down the page at the time defendants transfer the property to the beaver valley trust claimed it was not a creditor of  understand that there are taxes due and owing from ninety four and that the parties had a reasonable expectation or should have had a reasonable expectation that money was going to be owing to the government for obligations in one nine hundred ninety four and we had a because that's what the order seems to show and that was my understanding that's what this order shows that you're on and so it's because we're dealing with an issue of of who's a predator or who's who is it that the washington state statute is intended to do who's interested tend to be protected my understanding i want you to respond to it to the extent that yours is is different my understanding is that the washington statute deffeyes says as the parties to be protected my reading would include future creditors but the as reflected in the order wouldn't it be the case with the time of the transfer of the house in october of ninety five the government was one of those potential creditors because money was owed to the government at that time what was going to be owed to the government for the ninety four obligations the statute requires three things first of all there must be a creditor at the time of the transfer second of all there must be actual intent to defraud that creditor