Quatloos! > Tax
Scams > Tax
Protestors > EXHIBIT:
Tax Protestor Dummies 2 > Cases
("Damn, We Lost Again!
And why is it
that people who sell
tax protestor materials file their tax returns anyway . . .")
U.S. DISTRICT COURT,
NO. DIST. ILL.,
February 25, 2000
 ZAGEL, JUDGE: This is a civil tax case in which the United States seeks summary
judgment. The individual defendants have filed no response. The corporate defendants
are in default and judgments should be entered against them. The United States
has abandoned its claims against Florence E. Stout (and abated the income tax
assessments against her). This leaves the case of Paul R. Stout for decision.
Part of it has already been decided. By order and opinion of October 27, 1997,
I granted summary judgment against Mr. Stout for his unpaid income taxes from
1973 through 1980. The amount of that is proven to be $442,093.68 plus interest
and statutory additions since October 6, 1998. What is in issue now is the foreclosure
of the tax lien on certain real property located at 150 North Main Street, Lombard,
 The property was jointly owned by Paul and Florence
Stout and transferred by them to Tioga and Cambridge, the
corporate or non- individual defendants. The United States
claims the transfer was fraudulent, as it clearly is shown
to be under prevailing Illinois law which has adopted the
Uniform Fraudulent Convevance Act. See 740 ILCS 160/5(b)
and Gendron v. CNW, 139 Ill.2d 422, 564 N.E.2d 1207 (1990).
 The transfer was a sham. Mr. Stout is president of Cambridge
Trust Company, Ltd. and operates it. Cambridge controls and
operates Tioga Home Co. of which Mr. Stout too is president.
Mr. Stout resided at the property before and after the conveyance
which was made for the grand consideration of $10.00. The
purpose for the transfer I infer from the fact that the transfer
was made shortly after the Tax Court ruled that Mr. Stout
owed a lot of money. After the conveyance Mr. Stout had no
money to pay his debts. The Tax Court found that the same
property had previously been subject to a sham transfer to
avoid tax. The whole process impairs the rights of creditors,
most prominently, the United States.
 The United States has the lawful right to demand sale
of the entire property though I can refuse to allow this
in order to protect a co-owner who is not liable. See United
States v. Rodgers [83-1 USTC paragraph 9374], 461 U.S. 677
(1983)[.] Considering the circumstances here, I decline to
forfend sale of the entire property. Two possible non-liable
co-owners (Tioga and Cambridge) have not defended this action
and appear to be sham entities. Treating Florence E. Stout
as the co-owner does not change the result. She participated
in the fraudulent transfer herself. If she acted in good
faith, then she has abandoned her claims to the property.
If she did not, then she has no legal or equitable claim
 Judgment in favor of the United States is awarded.
Return to Tax Protestor Exhibit