state statute. As a result, said the court, “the IRS may seek to recover the state’s tax liability from [the residue transferee].”3 The case is an interesting demonstration of the occasional interaction of state and federal statutes. It’s also an important reminder of the potential liability that transferees bear for unpaid estate taxes. The Tax Court integrated the Massachusetts Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act for purposes of reaching determinations regarding the nature of qualified transfers, claims, and insolvency. Nebraska abandoned the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act adopting, instead, the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act. The Nebraska Act differs from the Massachusetts Act relative to the circumstances necessary to support each of the determinations made by the court. The following matrix outlines the Nebraska statute. Determination Nebraska Statute Citation Description Qualifying Transfer Neb. Rev. Stat. § 36-805 The statute provides that “[a] transfer made … by a debtor is voidable … if the debtor made the transfer … (1) with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor; or (2) without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer … and the debtor intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that the debtor would incur, debts beyond the debtor’s ability to pay as they became due.” For purposes of determining the existence of actual intent under (1) above, the statute provides that consideration may be given to whether “the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made.” Nature of a Claim Neb. Rev. Stat. § 36-802 The term claim “means a right to payment, whether or not the right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.” Insolvency Neb. Rev. Stat. § 36-803 The statute provides that “[a] debtor is insolvent if, at fair valuation, the sum of the debtor’s debts is greater than the sum of the debtor’s assets.” The interesting consequence of the differences between the Massachusetts Act and the Nebraska Act appears to relate to the findings necessary to support the determination of a qualifying transfer. The Nebraska Act requires either 1) actual intent or 2) in the absence of reasonably equivalent value, intent, belief, or what should have been reasonable belief. Although the Nebraska Act only expressly provides that insolvency is to be considered for purposes of making a determination of actual intent, it’s likely that insolvency may also be a consideration in the determination of intent, belief, and reasonable belief in matters involving the absence of reasonably equivalent value. Bryan Robertson is a trust services director for FNBO, where he works as part of a team to deliver a wide range of complex estate and trust planning and administrative services. He is also an adjunct assistant professor of accounting for Nebraska Wesleyan University, where he has taught an income tax course every fall semester and a corporate income tax course every spring semester since 2014. As a member of the Nebraska Society of CPAs for 34 years, Robertson is a past chairman of the Society and presently serves on the Fall Conference Committee. You may reach him at (402) 602-8769 or bryanrobertson@fnbo.com. 1 Estate of Georgia M. Spenlinhauer, T.C. Memo. 2025-134 (December 30, 2025). 2 The special wealth transfer tax lien statute, IRC § 6324, provides that a transferee who receives property included in the gross estate, to the extent of the value of that property at the date of the decedent’s death, is personally liable for unpaid estate tax liabilities. 3 Presumably as a result of the inclusion in IRC § 6324(a)(2) of the phrase “to the extent of the value,” the IRS acknowledged that the transferee’s liability is limited to the value of property actually received by that transferee. CONTINUED FROM PAGE 21 22 Nebraska CPA
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTg3NDExNQ==