Acct412 gdb2 reply

Acct412 gdb2 reply - 16th July 2011 Module 3 Group 3,GDB 2...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
16 th July 2011 Module 3, Group 3,GDB 2 Reply Dena Hill would be able to go to court and fight the tax liability because of the statute of limitations. The assessment statue of limitations (SOL) had all ready expired. The liquidation was in 2007 and falls under “the initial transferee – [the] one year after the expiration of the period of limitation for assessment against the transferor” (IRS, 2004). In the event of a court case, the Internal Revenue would have to prove that Dena owes the tax liability. If the Internal Revenue could not produce the required documentation, Dena would not be responsible for the liability. It is not noted in the case file if Dena signed the transferee agreement or not. If she did, this could be the reason the Internal Revenue went after Dena rather than Rosa. The transferee is not a joint agreement between Dena and Rosa. One of them is the transferee and the other would be categorizes differently.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 2

Acct412 gdb2 reply - 16th July 2011 Module 3 Group 3,GDB 2...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online