Court Opinion

ID: 9445167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:21:28.763253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:09.002626
License: Public Domain

HUXMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in Judge PICKETT’S opinion. I place my concurrence on the grounds stated in the opinion that the Tax Court adjudicated the entire tax liability of the appellant transferee.
In addition to what is stated by Judge PICKETT, I wish to make the following observations. As I construe the pertinent *241provisions of 26 U.S.C.A. § 311, they impose a personal tax liability upon the transferee for delinquent taxes of the transferor to the extent of the value of the assets transferred.1 True, this is a secondary liability but it is nonetheless the personal liability of the transferee. This liability attaches to him from the date an assessment is made and notice and demand for payment are served on the transferee. If he promptly discharges the liability, no interest accrues. If, on the contrary, he resists the demand and in the contest loses, interest accrues from the date of demand. A transferee in my view of the statute can become liable for interest chargeable against the transferor, prior to date of demand, on the transferee only in the event the value of the transferred assets exceed the amount of the principal of the delinquent tax due from the transferor.

. In Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, at page 603, 51 S.Ct. 608, at page 614, 75 L.Ed. 1289, the Supreme Court said: “One who receives corporate assets upon dissolution is severally liable, to the extent of assets received, for the payment of taxes of the corporation.”