United States v. Purcell (798 F. Supp. 1102, 1991)

MEMORANDUM

O’NEILL, District Judge.

I.Introduction

This is a non-jury action brought by the United States to reduce to judgment certain federal tax assessments made against defendant Thomas W. Purcell for the tax years 1980-1986. The government seeks to set aside as fraudulent the conveyance of real property located at 211 Cricket Avenue, Ardmore, Pennsylvania from defendant Thomas Purcell to himself and defendant Constance Purcell as tenants in the entireties. The government seeks to foreclose existing federal tax liens on the Cricket Avenue property. The government also seeks to foreclose federal tax liens on real property located at 328 Locust Avenue, Ardmore, Pennsylvania.

I held a non-jury trial and the parties have submitted their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and supporting memoranda. This Memorandum constitutes my findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 52(a).

For the reasons that follow, I conclude that the transfer of property from Mr. Purcell to himself and Mrs. Constance Purcell was fraudulent, either by intent or by law. Therefore, I will enter judgment in favor of the United States and against defendants Thomas and Constance Purcell. I conclude that if the federal tax lien attached to the Locust Avenue property the IRS does not qualify for the protection of the Pennsylvania recording statutes because it had notice of the transfer of Mr. Purcell’s interest in the Locust Avenue property to defendant Gingras. I therefore will enter judgment in favor of defendant Gingras and against the United States. I also will enter judgment in favor of the remaining defendants.

II. Findings of Fact

1. By his own description, Mr. Purcell is a “tax protester” and has for a number of years been a member of the Committee for Constitutional Taxation.

2. Mr. Purcell filed individual federal income tax returns for 1980 and 1981 in which he objected to listing any items of income or deductions and claimed the Fifth Amendment privilege.

3. On March 12, 1984, Mr. Purcell was notified of deficiencies for the 1980 and 1981 tax years and advised that a tax deficiency would be assessed against him unless he petitioned the Tax Court within 90 days. The deficiencies listed were:

Tax Year Additions to Tax Under 26 U.S.C.

Ended Tax § 6651(a) § 6653(a)(1) § 6653(a)(2)

12/31/80 $12,886 05