Whether the Sixth Circuit's decision conflicts with the decisions of the First, Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits regarding whether an alleged transferee's knowledge is required for collapsing transactions under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Sixth Circuit’s decision conflicts with the decisions of the First, Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits regarding whether an alleged transferee’s knowledge is required for collapsing transactions under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. 2. Whether the Sixth Circuit’s reliance on state tax cases rather than creditor rights cases to justify collapsing under Tennessee’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“TUFTA”) conflicts with Commissioner v. Stern, 357 U.S. 39 (1958) and Frank Sawyer Trust of May 1992 v. Commissioner, 712 F.3d 597 (CA1 2013). 3. Whether the Sixth Circuit’s imposition of strict liability under 26 U.S.C. § 6901 conflicts with Stern and the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Starnes v. Commissioner, 680 F.3d 417 (CA4 2012). 4. Whether the Sixth Circuit’s application of federal doctrines to collapse transactions under TUFTA violates Stern’s required two-step analysis and the decisions of the First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits interpreting Stern to prohibit such application.