Assessments

Proof of IRS Assessments by IRS Necessary to File a Tax Lien

Tax liens: Notice of liens: Certificate of assessmentsRonald Joe Samuelson, Plaintiff v. United States of America, Defendant.

U.S. District Court, Dist. Kan.; 07-1264-JTM, January 16, 2008.

[ Code Sec. 6321]

An individual's argument that liens for two tax years were fraudulent because the IRS had not made any prior assessment against him was rejected. Certificates of Assessments and Payments constituted presumptive proof of the existence and validity of tax assessments made prior to issuance of the notices of lien for the relevant tax years. Moreover, issuance of the notice of federal tax lien was not a prerequisite for the creation of a lien.



[ Code Sec. 6331]

Notice of levy: Additional notice. --
An individual's argument that notices of levy sent to his employer were fraudulent because they were not accompanied by Form 2433, Notice of Seizure, or by Form 668-B, Notice of Levy, was rejected. There was no requirement for an additional notice where the government was only levying on the taxpayer's wages.



[ Code Sec. 7421]

Tax liens: Sovereign immunity: Anti-Injunction Act. --
An individual was not entitled to injunctive relief to prevent any alleged irreparable injury suffered on account of the issuance of notices of levy by the government. The government had not waived its sovereign immunity and the Anti-Injunction Act barred claims seeking to restrain the assessment or collection of tax.




MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


MARTEN, Judge: The United States has filed tax liens against plaintiff Ronald Samuelson. Samuelson then brought the present action against the United States. In Count 1 of his Complaint, Samuelson argues that the liens for tax years 1995, 1996, and 1997 are fraudulent, because the IRS has not made any prior assessment against him. In Counts 2, 3, and 4, he alleges that the Notices of Levy sent to his employer were fraudulent, because they were not accompanied by certain statutory notices. In Count 5, he alleges that a Notice of Federal Tax Lien sent to the Sedgwick County, Kansas Register of Deeds was not based on a prior lawful assessment. Samuelson's Complaint includes two counts denominated as Count 6. In the first Count 6, he alleges that a Notice of Federal Tax Lien sent to his employer is fraudulent, because there was no prior Notice of Levy. In the second Count 6, he alleges generally that the Notices of Levy filed by the United States "are continuing threats of harm" against him, and that he has suffered irreparable injury for which he has not adequate remedy at law. (Dkt. No. 1, at 11).

The government's answer does not contest the facts asserted in Samuelson's Complaint. It essentially agrees that beginning in August of 2004, it has brought levies on Samuelson's wages for tax for five years, 1995-97 and 2002-03, that it filed liens with the registers of deeds in Lancaster County, Nebraska (for tax years 1995-97) and Sedgwick County (tax years 2002-03).

The government has moved to dismiss part of Count 1 (that relating to tax years 1995 and 1996) and all of Counts 2, 3, 4, and Count 6. It has separately moved for summary judgment on the remainder of Count 1 (relating to tax year 1997) and Count 5.

As to that portion of Count 1 concerning the tax years 1995 and 1996, the government previously released those liens on February 23, 2005, long before the present action was commenced.

In Counts 2-4, Samuelson complains that the Notices of Levy sent did not include a Form 2433 Notice of Seizure, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §6335, or a Form 668-B Notice of Levy, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §6502(b). However, §6502(b) merely provides the means for determining when a levy occurs: "The date on which a levy on property or rights to property is made shall be the date on which the notice of seizure provided in section 6335(a) is given." The statute does not itself create any additional notice requirement. And §6335(a) creates no requirement for additional notice in cases such as the present, since that statute deals with the seizure of property which the IRS intends to resell. It does not create an additional notice requirement where the government is simply levying on a taxpayer's wages. Sepp v. United States, No. CV05-0127PHX-MHM, 2002 WL 213995, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 25, 2006).

The first Count 6 is also subject to dismissal, since an enforceable lien is created under federal law by the assessment of tax itself. Kane v. Capital Garden Trust Co., 145 F.3d 1218, 1221 (10th Cir. 1998). The Notice of Federal Tax Lien is a means of establishing priority among potential creditors, Koch Oil v. King, 787 F.Supp. 993, 994-95 (D. Kan. 1992), but is not in itself a prerequisite for the creation of the lien.

With respect to the second, Count 6, the language of the Count appears to generally assert an injunctive claim for fraudulent conversion by the United States. But any such claim is barred, first by the government's general sovereign immunity, see James v. United States, 970 F.2d 750, 753 (10th Cir. 1992) (sovereign immunity waiver in 28 U.S.C. §2410 does not include waiver of immunity as to challenges as to the validity of a tax), as well as by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421(a), which bars injunctions seeking to restrain the assessment or collection of a tax.

The court also finds that the government is entitled to summary judgment on the remainder of Count 1 and the entirety of Count 5, since these claims rest entirely on the assertion that there was no prior assessment against Samuelson. However, the Certificates of Assessments and Payments submitted by the defendant demonstrate that assessments had been made against Samuelson prior to the notices of lien for the relevant tax year.

In his response, Samuelson does not directly respond to any of the arguments of the defendant. Instead, he generally contends that the government has not shown (a) that he is a taxpayer, (b) that he is liable for a federal tax, (c) that he is subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the United States, and (d) that the government "has never attempted to state actual facts to a competent witness." (Dkt. No. 14, at 5).

The court disagrees. As noted earlier, the defendant has submitted the Certificates of Assessments and Payments from its records as to the relevant tax years. Such documents have been held to constitute evidence that is admissible to show the existence and validity of a tax assessment. James v. United States, 970 F.2d 750, 755 (10th Cir. 1992).

In sum, plaintiff's request for relief seeks recovery for what has already previously received (release of the 1995 and 1996 assessments), or asserts to the existence of additional notice requirements which do not exist in the law. To the extent that Samuelson seeks a determination that he does not in fact owe the taxes that the government seeks to collect, the present action is barred by the sovereign immunity of the United States. United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608, James, 970 F.2d at 753.

IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 16 th day of January, 2008, that the defendant's Motions to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No's 10 and 12) are hereby granted.

Tax Liens: Creation of lien

The United States has no lien for taxes where there is no evidence as to when any assessment had been made.

Kennebec Box Co., 1925 CCH ¶7081, CA-2, 5 F2d 951.

Hill, 1928 CCH D-8156, DC, 25 F2d 1007.

Interest accruing from the date tax liens were filed enjoyed the same priority in interpleaded funds as the priority of the perfected tax liens themselves. Since interest is to be collected in the same manner as taxes and tax liens include all interest due from the date a tax payment is due until the date the payment is made, it was proper for the interest owed and the tax liens to have the same priority status. As the perfected tax liens had first priority, interest on the taxes owed also had first priority.

Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., CA-6, 94-2 USTC ¶50,519.

IRS liens for unpaid excise and employment taxes did not have priority over a state (New Jersey) tax division's liens for unpaid motor fuels taxes because the state liens were choate before the IRS liens arose. The amount of the state's liens were sufficiently established even though the corporate taxpayer had the right to appeal the state's assessment. The state's liens had not terminated despite the expiration of a warrant of execution because the warrant did not create the lien. The state's liens were also considered summarily enforceable even though the state was not required to take possession of the taxpayer's property.

Monica Fuel, Inc., CA-3, 95-2 USTC ¶50,477, 56 F3d 508.

A state (Virginia) did not qualify as a judgment lien creditor and its claim against an estate's assets did not have priority over federal tax liens that were first in time. Despite the fact that Virginia law gave the state lien the "effect" of a judgment, the state did not satisfy the tax code criteria to be a judgment lien creditor because its lien was not obtained in a court of record or from any type of judicial authority. Monica Fuel, Inc., CA-3, 95-2 USTC ¶50,477, distinguished.

South Independence, Inc., BC-DC Va., 2001-1 USTC ¶50,312, 256 BR 861.

Where no assessments had been made prior to the taxpayer's death, jointly owned assets that passed directly to his surviving spouse were not subject to a lien.

Rev. Rul. 78-299, 1978-2 CB 304.

The government failed to prove that it had made a formal demand for taxes.

J.R. Coson, CA-9, 61-1 USTC ¶9219, 286 F2d 453.

Cattani, N.J. SCt, 54-1 USTC ¶9262, 103 A2d 51.

A formal demand was unnecessary where the taxpayer offered to pay an amount to compromise his tax liability and the government, in turn, ultimately accepted his offer.

Guaranty Trust Co., CA-4, 1 USTC ¶130, 5 F2d 553.

A tax lien did not arise prior to a demand for a penalty imposed as a result of a failure to pay over withholding taxes.

Mrizek, DC, Ill., 59-2 USTC ¶9678.

A contemporaneous act of filing a lien at a time when a demand for payment was taped to the taxpayer's mailbox did not render the lien void.

Macey & Sikes, DC Ga., 86-1 USTC ¶9176, 628 FSupp 52.

A taxpayer was properly convicted of failing to disclose a "tax lien" to HUD when signing a loan application, although no tax lien existed because no demand was made by the IRS. The use of the word "lien" in the indictment was unnecessary, and the variance was harmless.

M. Guon, CA-9, 71-1 USTC ¶9441.

A demand on a partnership was a demand upon all of its partners and was sufficient for making assessed taxes a lien on property of individual partners.

American Surety Co. of New York, Wash. SCt, 61-2 USTC ¶9574, 363 P2d 99. Cert. denied, 368 US 989.

Similarly, with respect to "silent partner."

R. Adams, DC Neb., 71-1 USTC ¶9492, 328 FSupp 228.

A filing of a claim for taxes with a referee in bankruptcy related back to the date of the assessment against the bankrupt and satisfied the statutory requirement that there be a demand for payment in order for a tax lien to arise.

Fidelity Tube Corp., CA-3, 60-1 USTC ¶9446, 278 F2d 776.

A tax lien against a recognized creditor of a bankrupt was without effect where notice was given to the trustee in bankruptcy without the court's permission.

Eagle Frosted Foods Corp., DC Del., 52-1 USTC ¶9295.

Tax liens were created at the time of assessment.

B & H Opticks, Inc., DC Mo., 86-1 USTC ¶9480, 63 FSupp 1356.

R.F. Morgan, BC-DC Fla., 97-2 USTC ¶50,739.

S.J. Larrew, DC Texas, 2006-2 USTC ¶50,461.

A creditor's argument that because the IRS originally filed a jeopardy assessment against the debtor, which was paid within ten days of filing, the IRS did not have a secured claim was rejected because the lien arose at the time the assessment was made and continued until the liability was satisfied.

R.M. Gibout, BC-DC Mich., 2000-2 USTC ¶50,583.

An individual who failed to pay assessed taxes after demand was required to surrender his stock certificates to the government in payment of the assessed taxes. The government had made timely assessments and had perfected liens on each assessment. Therefore, the liens could be reduced to judgment. Execution of the judgment could reach any property, real or personal, belonging to the individual. The individual did not carry his burden of proving that the assessments were wrong.

D.J. Mueller, DC Pa., 93-2 USTC ¶50,597.

A federal tax lien was valid against a subsequent purchaser in the chain of title to property encumbered by the tax lien. The lien was valid and choate at the time of the assessment and the lien was perfected on the date that it was filed.

B.J. Glass, DC Ky., 88-2 USTC ¶9600, 703 FSupp 38.

Code Sec. 6325(a)(1) does not require the IRS to release valid tax liens when the underlying tax debt is discharged in bankruptcy. Although a discharge in bankruptcy prevents the IRS from taking any action to collect the debt as a personal liability of the debtor, their property may remain liable for a debt secured by a valid tax lien.

R.H. Isom, CA-9, 90-1 USTC ¶50,216, 901 F2d 744.

Although debtors' personal liability for taxes had been discharged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding, the IRS's tax liens survived and attached to the debtors' prepetition property and rights to property. Even though bankruptcy is defined as a fresh start for debtors, Congress intended that valid tax liens would survive bankruptcy. The debtors could not employ the expansive powers under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to avoid the tax liens in their Chapter 7 case.

M. Avola, BC-DC N.J., 97-2 USTC ¶50,813.

The taxpayer's argument that a forfeiture provision in his franchise agreement prevented attachment of a tax lien was without merit. These provisions are not effective against a federal tax lien.

H.J. Mathews, DC Mo., 90-1 USTC ¶50,268.

Federal tax liens for taxes owed and statutory additions were valid against an individual who failed to file federal income tax returns for six consecutive years. Conveyances of a residence and farm to relatives were fraudulent under state law and were set aside. Federal tax liens attached to the fraudulently conveyed property. The U.S. was granted judgment foreclosing its tax liens on the fraudulently conveyed property and was authorized to sell such property to satisfy the tax liens and additions to tax.

E.D. Christensen, DC Utah, 90-2 USTC ¶50,543, 751 FSupp 1532. Dism'd, CA-10 (unpublished opinion 4/8/92).

Liens filed against the taxpayer's property with respect to unpaid assessments for income taxes, failure to pay over employment tax penalties and return preparer penalties were valid. The IRS had complied with the statutory procedures and had properly mailed notices of assessment and demands for payment to the taxpayer's last known address within sixty days of the assessments.

D.E. Coplin, DC Mich., 91-1 USTC ¶50,035. Aff'd, CA-6 (unpublished opinion 12/17/91).

An IRS tax lien was procedurally valid. Taxes were assessed because the taxpayer did not respond to a Notice of Deficiency within 90 days and the lien for unpaid taxes arose at the time of assessment. The taxpayer presented no evidence to refute the amounts assessed or to establish that the lien was unenforceable. His argument that the IRS failed to assess and collect tax within the permissible time period was without merit because 10 years had not passed since the assessments were made.

J.D. Snavely, DC Ala., 93-2 USTC ¶50,517.

The government was entitled, as a matter of law, to the proceeds from an auction of a tenant's property, as the landlords failed to establish that they had a super-priority security interest in the proceeds.

M.R. Eskanos, DC Colo., 91-2 USTC ¶50,492, 768 FSupp 759.

A federal tax lien seeking the unpaid employment taxes of a prime contractor had priority over a Miller Act letter sent by a subcontractor to the prime contractor, which antedated the federal tax lien. The notification letter sent by the subcontractor did not create a choate lien in the surety established by the prime contractor because it did not identify the property to which it attached.

J.D. Grainger Co., Inc., CA-9, 91-2 USTC ¶50,552.

An order to invalidate the certificate of sale of seized property was granted because the minimum 10-day requirement under Code Sec. 6335 was not met prior to the sale. The motion to return the property, however, was denied. The property remained subject to a valid seizure, which was effected after the IRS provided notice of the tax assessment creating a statutory lien in favor of the government.

J.J. Kulawy, DC Conn., 92-2 USTC ¶50,601. Aff'd, CA-2 (unpublished opinion 4/10/94).

The IRS acted properly when it released tax liens shortly after the tax owed was paid by the taxpayer; it was not required to release the tax liens prior to this time. The tax liens had been properly filed since an IRS officer had certified on the Notice of Federal Tax Lien that demand for payment had been made. The taxpayer's argument that all collection activities were suspended when it filed an appeal of the initial assessment was rejected.

Amber Truck Lines, DC Utah, 92-2 USTC ¶50,599, 805 FSupp 32.

Federal tax liens filed against a dairy company's property to satisfy the tax debt of the majority shareholders were valid and properly enforced. The IRS's rights to a corporate checking account levied upon were superior to the rights of a bank which held a security interest in the account. The bank did not properly perfect its interest in the property; it failed to establish that it had exercised its right of setoff.

Horton Dairy, Inc., CA-8, 93-1 USTC ¶50,195, 986 F2d 286.

An individual who failed to notify the IRS of a change of address was not entitled to the removal of tax liens that resulted from deficiencies assessed because of his failure to file returns. The IRS mailed the deficiency notices to the taxpayer's last known address and otherwise proceeded properly in assessing the deficiencies.

L.C. Tupper, DC Wis., 93-1 USTC ¶50,133.

A state (Florida) court's pre-judgment order requiring the deposit of cashier's checks that were in the possession of a delinquent taxpayer in a bank account pending the outcome of a case to determine ownership of said funds did not create a security interest for the creditors who were payees of the checks that could defeat a subsequently filed tax lien. The tax lien, which was filed prior to the entry of final judgment, had priority over the creditors' claim because the amount of their inchoate lien had not been conclusively established. The tax lien had priority over both the creditors' judgment lien and their pre-judgment interest obtained when the funds were ordered held in accordance with federal and state law. Although the checks were payable to the creditors, they were in the possession of the taxpayer's counsel up until their deposit in the bank account. Thus, the taxpayer held an interest in the funds to which the tax lien could attach.

Central Bank of Tampa, DC Fla., 93-2 USTC ¶50,586.

A tax lien that was filed prior to entry of a final judgment rendered in state (Florida) court had priority over creditors' claims. The tax lien also attached before the initiation of an interpleader action by the bank holding the deposited amount to recover attorney fees and costs. The creditors failed to prove that the government waived its right to the deposited funds when it allowed them to relinquish a landlord lien based on the belief that the funds were available to satisfy the debt owed to them.

Central Bank of Tampa, DC Fla., 94-1 USTC ¶50,290, 845 FSupp 860. Aff'd, per curiam, CA-11 (unpublished opinion), 95-2 USTC ¶50,558.

IRS liens for petroleum excise taxes had priority over the claims of an oil company that sold oil encumbered by the liens to a buyer who refused to pay for the oil, but instead deposited the sales proceeds with the court in an interpleader action. The IRS had recorded its notices of liens prior to the sale of the oil. The liens remained attached to the oil and extended to the proceeds even though the buyer was an innocent third party. Since the IRS established that it was entitled to the interpleaded funds and there were no material issues of fact, the IRS's motion for summary judgment was granted and the funds were awarded to the government to satisfy the liens.

Petro Source Partners, Ltd., DC Tex., 94-1 USTC ¶50,053.

A federal tax lien that arose when an audit deficiency was assessed against a taxpayer had priority over the rights of a transferee of oil and gas properties and was enforceable through a foreclosure sale of the transferred properties. Under state (Texas) law, the delinquent taxpayer had an interest in the mineral rights when the tax liens attached since the transfer deed had not yet been recorded. Similarly, stock owned by the taxpayer was subject to the tax liens because she transferred title in the shares after the liens attached.

R.L. Huszagh, DC Ill., 94-1 USTC ¶50,147, 846 FSupp 1352.

The IRS was entitled to foreclose on its federal tax liens on the real property of an individual. The IRS had created the liens by filing a certificate of assessments and payments in the office of the recorder of deeds where the taxpayer's property interests were recorded. The certificate identified the taxpayer, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period and the amount of the assessment. The certificate was properly signed and dated. The taxpayer presented no evidence to rebut the presumption of the validity and propriety of the tax assessments.

G.E. Bass, DC Tenn., 93-2 USTC ¶50,504.

Married taxpayers' motion to dismiss an IRS action seeking to reduce their outstanding tax liabilities to judgment for failure of service was denied. The IRS's tax lien was a charge against property, not a self-executing seizure. Thus, there were no other judicial actions to which the taxpayers were denied notice and a hearing, and as a result, the taxpayers were properly served.

G.D. Bell, DC Calif., 97-1 USTC ¶50,426.

Alleged threats by an IRS agent were not deemed to be the substantial equivalent of a lien or levy because the threats were not so intimidating as to convert a voluntary payment of the taxes into an involuntary one.

R.C. Krause, DC Mich., 97-1 USTC ¶50,307.

The IRS correctly assessed tax against an individual who was denied a bad debt deduction for a loan that had not become totally worthless. Therefore, it had valid tax liens upon all property belonging to the taxpayer. Furthermore, the IRS perfected its liens, and a judicial sale of the property was appropriate.

S.A. Stemm, DC Fla., 97-2 USTC ¶50,838. Aff'd, per curiam, CA-11 (unpublished opinion), 98-2 USTC ¶50,636, 152 F3d 934.

A taxpayer who failed to contest the assessment of fees imposed by the IRS in connection with the placement of tax liens and levies on his property was liable for the fees.

G.M. Brown, FedCl, 99-1 USTC ¶50,337, 43 FedCl 463. Aff'd, CA-FC (unpublished opinion), 99-2 USTC ¶50,948.

The conveyance of real property by delinquent married taxpayers to the wife's daughter and son-in-law was set aside as fraudulent because it was intended to defeat the rights of the IRS as a creditor. Although the assessments were made shortly after the conveyance, the taxpayers knew they were in severe financial difficulty at the time they transferred the property. Since the IRS was deemed to be a creditor from the date the obligation to pay taxes accrued, rather than from the date the assessment was made, the tax liens filed against the taxpayers and against their daughter and son-in-law as nominees for the taxpayers were valid and could be foreclosed.

U. Freudenberg, DC Tenn., 99-2 USTC ¶50,623.

Federal tax liens against proceeds from the sale of a delinquent taxpayer's liquor license were superior to most of the state (Pennsylvania) tax liens filed against the taxpayer. Although the state liens attached as soon as proper notice was filed by the state, the notice did not constitute a judgment or allow the state to qualify as a judgment creditor. Accordingly, the federal liens were perfected as soon as the taxpayer's federal deficiencies were assessed, regardless of when the IRS filed notice of them, and only a state lien that was filed prior to the assessment of the taxpayer's federal deficiencies was superior to the federal liens. Finally, state law prohibiting the sale of a liquor license by a party that owed state taxes did not give the state a lien interest in the license; also, to the extent that the law granted the state a reserved interest in the license that amounted to a superpriority over federal tax liens, it was preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

R&E Corp., DC Pa., 99-2 USTC ¶50,813.

Chief Counsel concluded that Florida Collection personnel who desired to continue their long standing practice of filing both individual and joint notices of federal tax lien could continue to do so. Its previous recommendation against the use of a joint notice of federal tax lien when spouses owned property as tenants by the entirety and were jointly and severally liable did not preclude the Service Center from continuing its practice.

CCA Letter Ruling 200135028, July 31, 2001.

The government was entitled to set aside as fraudulent an individual's conveyance of real property to her daughter despite the fact that it assessed its tax liability more than a year and half after the taxpayer acquired and then transferred the subject property. Under state (Florida) law it was entitled to have the conveyance set aside as fraudulent since the government's claim arose as of the date on which the taxes were due and owing and constituted a liability as of the date when the tax return was required to be filed. Moreover, the transfer was to the taxpayer's daughter, the taxpayer received no consideration and conceded that she was insolvent as a result of the government's attempts to collect her tax debt, and the daughter did not take possession of the property until two years after the sale.

P. Labato, DC Fla., 2002-2 USTC ¶50,541.

Liens against a married couple who failed or refused to pay income and employment taxes properly arose on the date of assessment and attached to the taxpayers' residence. The taxpayers' contention that the liens were invalid because the IRS failed to issue a notice of deficiency prior to filing them was rejected. The IRS was not required to issue a notice of deficiency because the income taxes at issue were based on amounts voluntarily reported and because employment taxes are not subject to the Code Sec. 6212 deficiency procedures.

S.C. Burdine, DC Wash., 2002-2 USTC ¶50,560, 205 FSupp2d 1175.

The government was not entitled to a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) on its claim for a money judgment against an individual because his liability for the tax assessment was a threshold issue for the government's claim to foreclose a tax lien. Because the money judgment claim was not wholly distinct from its foreclosure claims, a final judgment would create the risk of duplicative appellate review. Further, the government's interests would not be seriously impaired by any resulting delay.

S.J. Gaynor, DC Ill., 2002-2 USTC ¶50,687.

The government was not entitled to summary judgment with respect to a claim by an attorney who created an escrow fund that she was entitled to superpriority to collect her fees from the fund. The funds arose from the settlement of a lawsuit and were held in escrow in connection with a federal tax lien against an individual. Although the government claimed that the attorney did not timely perfect her attorney's charging lien, the tax code does not require a charging lien before attorney's fees may be given priority, and an issue of fact existed as to whether the parties intended for the attorney's fees to be paid from any recovery obtained by the attorney on the taxpayer's behalf.

T.W. Strickland, Jr., DC Fla., 2002-2 USTC ¶50,734.

The IRS was entitled to file a federal tax lien against an individual during the pendency of the taxpayer's claim for relief from joint and several liability. The language found in Code Sec. 6015(e)(1)(B)(i) operated to prohibit only a "proceeding in court" during the pendency of an innocent spouse claim and, as a result, did not apply to the filing of a federal tax lien. The court determined that a "proceeding in court" referred to the formal filing of a lawsuit or complaint, not the informal administrative procedures involved in filing a lien. Further, no additional provisions under Code Sec. 6015(e)(1)(B)(i), or the lien and levy procedures, expressly prohibited such a filing.

J.E. Beery, 122 TC 184, Dec. 55,553.

The IRS was not entitled to a lien upon any of the property acquired by the trustee as a result of the settlement with the spendthrift trust. The tax lien dated back prior to the creation of the purported trust. While the IRS's claim was entitled to a presumption of validity, there was no presumption that its claim was secured. There was no evidence that the IRS's lien attached to the property which the spendthrift trust used as consideration for the settlement and the release of the trustee's claim.

J.C. Ball, DC Va., 2004-1 USTC ¶50,220.

Individuals' arguments were styled tax-protestor type arguments, and their motion to dismiss the case was denied. Implementing regulations are not required for Code Sec. 6321.

D.W. Dawes, DC Kan., 2004-1 USTC ¶50,222. Aff'd, CA-10 (unpublished opinion), 2006-1 USTC ¶50,139.

Federal tax liens attached to an individual's property and rights to property upon the issuance of an assessment for taxes. It was not necessary for notices of federal tax lien to be filed to be valid.

N. Choate, DC Tenn., 2004-2 USTC ¶50,384.

The IRS was warranted in filing a notice of federal tax lien against a taxpayer whose prior payment to the IRS had been forfeited. The taxpayer had made a payment of $2 million to the IRS, which was subsequently ordered forfeited to the U.S. Marshals Service in an unrelated nontax criminal case. The IRS was not obliged todefend the forfeiture order on the grounds that it was a bona fide purchaser for value, and could initiate additional collection activities against the taxpayer.

W.J. McCorkle, 124 TC 56, Dec. 55,937.

Although the IRS had accepted an installment agreement from a taxpayer, the IRS was not precluded from maintaining a tax lien while there was a balance due.

D.A. Ramirez, 90 TCM 85, Dec. 56,102(M), TC Memo. 2005-179.

IRS could foreclose on property of successor corporate owner despite purchasing the property from the original corporate owner in a bankruptcy sale because there was no final adjudication of the validity or amounts of any junior liens on the property. The tax liens attached upon issuance of an assessment for unpaid taxes and remain until satisfied, discharged or lapsed. Since the liens were not discharged, they continue to be attached to the property.

Grass Lake All Seasons Resort, Inc., DC Mich., 2005-2 USTC ¶50,580.

Although an individual entered into a contract to purchase real property before the IRS filed notices of federal tax liens on the property, the assessment of tax liability was made prior to the time the contract was entered into. Therefore, the property remained encumbered by the liens

R..G. Ruggerio, CA-4 (unpublished opinion), 2005-2 USTC ¶50,645, 153 FedAppx 242, rev'g and rem'g DC Md., 2005-1 USTC ¶50,328.

A valid federal tax lien on an individual's property arose without the need for a court order. A lien automatically arises upon assessment of a tax and continues until the taxpayer's liability is satisfied or becomes unenforceable.

D. Kyler, CA-10 (unpublished opinion), 2006-1 USTC ¶50,258, aff'g an unreported District Court decision.

An individual's challenge to the validity of the tax lien on his property for unpaid federal taxes failed. The individual's argument that he had no tax liability because he never received a tax assessment from the IRS failed. Furthermore, the notice of lien was not required to cite legal authority, and the instructions accompanying the levy specifically addressed the royalty payments

J.M. Kish v. D.A. Rogers, DC Texas, 2007-2 USTC ¶50,766.


Levy and Distraint: Notice, sufficiency of

A bank could not lawfully refuse to comply with an administrative levy on the grounds that the disputed funds were being held in joint tenancy by the delinquent taxpayer and a third party.

National Bank of Commerce, SCt, 85-2 USTC ¶9482, 472 US 713, 105 SCt 2919.

An IRS levy on the bank accounts of a hospital's general partners in satisfaction of the hospital's unpaid payroll taxes was not invalid. Proper notice was given and the levy was completed prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The partners were sent monthly statements by the bank which, in conjunction with the receipt of notices of levy, should have alerted them before the running of the limitations period that the bank accounts had been levied upon by the IRS. Even though the IRS did not provide a notice of seizure in writing, the notices of levy and the bank statements were in writing. In addition, the notices of levy indicated the amounts demanded and the bank statements conveyed to whom the amounts were paid. The fact that the notices of levy were provided to the partners prior to the seizure was not of any legal significance.

E. Kaggen, CA-2, 95-2 USTC ¶50,635.

Taxpayer's charge of alleged harassment by the Internal Revenue Service in seizing a token bank account owned by the taxpayer was without merit where proper and adequate notice of the levy was given to him prior to seizure.

Hunter, Jr., CA-2, 65-2 USTC ¶9465, 345 F2d 513.

Christy, DC, 81-2 USTC ¶9701.

The taxpayer-debtor received adequate notice and demand of unpaid taxes and was not entitled to recover property seized by the government in satisfaction of such taxes. Also, he was not denied due process and the court was without jurisdiction to restore him to possession or control of his properties.

J. Cornell, DC, 69-2 USTC ¶9629.

The law does not require that a taxpayer receive notice when collection efforts are undertaken through the use of a levy. It only requires notice when the tax liability initially becomes due and owing. A request for an injunction until notice of a levy to take place on the taxpayer's property was denied.

Glover, DC, 72-1 USTC ¶9377.

For a levy to be effective, the taxpayer must receive notice and demand prior to the levy. A Prompt Assessment Billing Assembly sent to the taxpayer's offices, which was received after the notice of levy, was ineffective.

L.O.C. Industries, Inc., DC, 76-2 USTC ¶9573, 423 FSupp 265.

There was no merit to the taxpayer's contention that she did not receive notice of a proposed levy. In fact, she received a notice almost ten months before the event.

H.B. Fiory, DC, 74-1 USTC ¶9418.

A mailing of the notice of levy only nine days after the demand for payment did not render the underlying levy invalid because the notice does not constitute the levy and, in this case, the taxpayer had more than the required ten days notice prior to the levy.

D.J. Callahan, DC Fla., 84-2 USTC ¶9734.

The mailing of a notice of levy to the taxpayer's home instead of to his prison address was not a violation of due process.

Miller, DC, 81-1 USTC ¶9238.

Adequate notice was given, and a husband could not refuse to obey a court order on the basis that the copy presented to him did not bear a court "seal".

F.J. Campbell, CA-6, 85-1 USTC ¶9406, 761 F2d 1181.

The IRS had the power to levy upon a husband's share of his wife's earnings in a community property state without being required to give the wife 10 days notice.

B. Hollingshead, DC Tex., 85-2 USTC ¶9772.

The IRS was not liable for disclosing a corporation's tax return information in an improperly issued notice of levy since such information was not confidential. The information was previously placed in the public domain when it was disclosed in properly recorded federal tax liens and in the corporate shareholder's bankruptcy petition.

W.E. Schrambling Accountancy Corp., CA-9, 91-2 USTC ¶50,345, 937 F2d 1485. Cert. denied, 1/21/92.

Although the IRS failed to give notice and demand prior to levying upon the taxpayer's assets, injunctive relief was unavailable because substantial efforts were made to serve a proper notice and an immediate post-seizure notice and demand was given.

Security Counselors, Inc., DC Mo., 88-1 USTC ¶9247.

Even though the evidence did not establish whether a notice of levy was received through a post office box or by certified or registered mail, an individual timely received actual notice of a levy before the levy was executed. Thus, the notice of levy requirement was satisfied. Despite the dispute regarding the existence of a payroll deduction agreement for the satisfaction of unpaid tax liability, the IRS properly levied on the individual's credit union account. Accordingly, no IRS officer or employee recklessly or intentionally disregarded any Code provision or regulation in collecting such tax.

H.E. Person, DC Hawaii, 90-2 USTC ¶50,365.

The IRS properly levied upon a taxpayer's checking account in order to collect unpaid federal income taxes. Notices of intent to levy were sent to the taxpayer's last known address by certified mail. The taxpayer's last known address was the address contained on the most recent delinquent return filed with the IRS.

E.A. Chandler, DC Ohio, 91-1 USTC ¶50,209.

Although deficiencies apparently were assessed for taxes due, whether there had been sufficient notice of intent to levy remained an issue for trial. The taxpayer denied having received such notice, and government documents as to the required mailing were not properly authenticated.

H.H. Lovelace, DC Tenn., 91-2 USTC ¶50,339. Aff'd, CA-6 (unpublished opinion 2/27/92).

An IRS levy against monies held in an employment benefit plan to satisfy delinquent taxes owed by a plan participant was illegal, unenforceable and void as a matter of law because the IRS failed to comply with the 30-day notice provisions. The only notice of levy was given to the benefit plan and not to the taxpayer.

Toledo Plumbers & Pipefitters Retirement Plan and Trust, DC Ohio, 91-2 USTC ¶50,343.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of the government since the taxpayers submitted no evidence that the IRS failed to give them sufficient notice of assessment or levy, and of the seizure and sale of their property. The publication notice of the sale of the seized property satisfied the 10-day notice requirement.

B.M. Gentry, DC Tenn., 91-2 USTC ¶50,374. Aff'd on another issue, CA-6, 92-1 USTC ¶50,225, 962 F2d 555.

The IRS properly followed established procedures in its efforts to reduce a mistakenly omitted assessment of accrued interest to final judgment. Although the restricted interest assessment was issued ten years after the tax year in question, such fact did not invoke new and different matters requiring additional notice but rather constituted a continuation of the previously assessed interest. There is nothing in the law requiring the IRS to make a separate assessment of interest on an assessed tax liability in order to collect that interest.

Toyota of Visalia, Inc., DC Calif., 91-2 USTC ¶50,327. Aff'd, CA-9 (unpublished opinion 2/16/93).

The IRS's collection of interest and penalties on the tax liability by administrative offset was valid. The IRS was not required to make notice and demand upon the taxpayer prior to collection by this method.

V. Fulgoni, ClsCt, 91-1 USTC ¶50,256, 23 ClsCt 119.

The IRS failed to establish that it had sent a taxpayer a pre-levy notice, which must be given in person, left at the taxpayer's dwelling or usual place of business, or sent by certified or registered mail.

W. Simpson, DC Fla., 91-2 USTC ¶50,504.

The IRS properly collected a tax by levy against an individual within the prescribed statutory period subsequent to its assessment because the expiration of the lien subsequent to the collection of the tax was not relevant.

J.J. Karmazin, DC La., 92-1 USTC ¶50,157. Aff'd, CA-5 (unpublished opinion 2/25/93).

A taxpayer's claim of insufficient notice of levy was invalid because a deficiency notice was unnecessary for the collection of taxes shown due but unpaid on a tax return and because the taxpayer was actually in receipt of a final notice of intent to levy.

L. Serio, DC Ore., 92-2 USTC ¶50,355.

An individual was not granted an injunction preventing the sale of his residence due to a tax deficiency. His failure to receive notice of deficiency did not render the IRS's seizure procedure invalid; the assessment procedure was not dependent upon actual receipt, but on the IRS's act of mailing the notice.

J.H. Stahl, DC Mich., 92-2 USTC ¶50,517.

A third party wrongfully refused to honor an IRS levy on a money judgment in favor of a taxpayer. Although the taxpayer was not served with notice of the levy, the third party did not have standing to challenge the procedural irregularity because there was no injury-in-fact.

D. Matthews, DC Wash., 92-2 USTC ¶50,566.

The IRS properly sent the taxpayer a notice of assessment and demand for payment of the taxes and a notice of intent to levy. Moreover, the IRS properly levied on the taxpayer's current right to receive residuals under various contracts.

L. Elias, DC Calif., 93-1 USTC ¶50,131. Aff'd, CA-9 (unpublished opinion 2/11/94).

In the taxpayer's suit to quiet title, the IRS failed to prove that it had sent the requisite notice of its intention to levy on an individual's wages to his last known address by certified or registered mail. The affidavit of an IRS agent that pre-levy notices were sent to the taxpayer by certified mail did not rebut the taxpayer's claim that he did not receive the notices.

W. Simpson, DC Fla., 93-1 USTC ¶50,248.

A taxpayer failed to allege a procedural defect in the notice given by the IRS in connection with the levy on his property. The requirement of a warrant of distraint was set forth in the predecessor to the notice statute. Accordingly, the levy was not rendered ineffective merely because of a warrant of distraint did not accompany the service of notice of the levy.

E.G. Boyajian, DC Pa., 93-2 USTC ¶50,472, 825 FSupp 714.

The IRS's failure to establish compliance with the certified mailing requirement in connection with the issuance of notices of intent to levy merely entitled a married couple to the release of the levy that was presently in effect against the husband's military benefits, not to a release of valid federal tax liens against the couple.

M. Arford, CA-9 (unpublished opinion), 95-1 USTC ¶50,046.

The IRS properly sent a notice of intent to levy to the taxpayers' last known address by certified mail. Therefore, the taxpayers' claim challenging the procedural validity of the levy was not a valid cause of action under the quiet title provision of 28 U.S.C. §2410. Consequently, the taxpayers' suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

R.W. Stacey, DC Ore., 94-1 USTC ¶50,261.

An individual's argument that he had not been given notice and demand for payment of a 100-percent penalty was defeated when the IRS introduced a certified certificate of assessments and payments. The certificate of assessments and payments established both the tax assessment and the notice and demand for payment. Notice and demand was also established by testimony of an IRS employee and the fact that a final notice of intention to levy had been sent to the individual's residence by certified mail.

E.J. Schroeder, BC-DC Neb., 94-2 USTC ¶50,431.

The seizure and sale of a couple's residence for nonpayment of taxes was proper. A Notice of Intent to Levy issued three years earlier in connection with the seizure of the couple's boat stated on its face that it applied to all of the couple's real and personal property. A separate notice with respect to the residence was not required.

A. Skipwith, Jr., DC Mass., 95-1 USTC ¶50,014, 868 FSupp 400.

The IRS established that a notice of intent to levy was properly sent by certified mail to the taxpayer's proper address in a timely fashion by producing the dated notice, which had been returned as unclaimed. The IRS did not intentionally fail to produce the returned notice in discovery proceedings since it believed in good faith at the time that the notice had been destroyed in accordance with standard IRS procedures.

R. James, DC Wyo., 95-1 USTC ¶50,146.

Addresses to which the notices of levy were sent were not the taxpayer's last known address because, prior to the time the IRS issued the notices, the taxpayer tendered a power of attorney to the IRS demanding that all correspondence be sent to his attorney.

N.P. Czajkowski, DC Mich., 95-1 USTC ¶50,176.

Notices of levy served on third parties seeking to obtain settlement proceeds in satisfaction of unpaid taxes were unenforceable where the IRS failed to sent a deficiency notice to the taxpayer's last known address.

N.P. Czajkowski, DC Mich., 96-2 USTC ¶50,410.

A Certificate of Assessments and Payments (Form 4340) and other documents, as well as the testimony of an IRS employee regarding mailing procedures, were sufficient to establish the mailing of a notice of intent to levy. A written procedure for sending such notices was not required to validate the testimony of the employee.

J.J. Camacho, BC-DC Alas., 95-1 USTC ¶50,315. Aff'd on another issue, DC Alas., 96-1 USTC ¶50,103. Motion for reconsideration denied, 96-1 USTC ¶50,104.

An individual's claim for preenforcement review of the IRS's notice of intent to levy was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. The Act protects not only the assessment and collection of taxes, but also activities that are intended to, or may culminate in, the assessment or collection of taxes.

J.D. Morelli, DC N.Y., 96-1 USTC ¶50,292.

Notices of levy did not require the signature of any IRS official, and they properly provided the taxpayer with sufficient information to understand the levy procedure.

M. Watts, DC Wyo., 96-2 USTC ¶50,648. Aff'd, CA-10 (unpublished opinion), 96-2 USTC ¶50,649.

A notice of levy that was sent to an individual was procedurally valid even though a copy of the notice was not sent to his recognized representative as required by the IRS's procedural regulations.

W.H. Swann, CA-9 (unpublished opinion), 97-2 USTC ¶50,676, aff'g an unreported District Court decision.

A refund suit brought by married taxpayers who had received actual notice of the IRS's intention to levy against their property was barred by the statute of limitations because the taxpayers failed to file an administrative refund claim within two years after payment of the taxes. The notice, which was hand-delivered to the home of the husband's father, was received by the taxpayers, who filed suit to enjoin collection of the tax debt. The delivery was proper because it gave the taxpayers actual notice of the IRS's intention to levy without prejudicial delay. Since the levy satisfied a tax obligation, the funds remitted to the IRS were payments, not deposits, that triggered application of the statute of limitations.

J.D. Davis, FedCl (unpublished opinion), 98-1 USTC ¶50,334.

An individual was not entitled to an award of damages and injunctive relief in connection with a tax levy against him. His contentions that he was deprived of due process because he was not notified of a hearing regarding the levy against his pension and that the government had waived its immunity from suit were rejected. The record established that the IRS properly provided him with a notice of levy, and the taxpayer alleged no other procedural lapses. Further, absent proof that the government had waived sovereign immunity, the trial court did not err in dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

G.A. Jenkins, CA-9 (unpublished opinion), 98-1 USTC ¶50,464.

The IRS proved, by submission of a certified transcript, that it had properly notified an individual of its intent to levy his wages.

E.P. Jones, DC Ohio, 98-2 USTC ¶50,755.

A delinquent taxpayer's motion to quash a levy was dismissed. Although the taxpayer claimed that he was not served with a deficiency notice, he attached a copy of the notice to his complaint. Since the government also had not waived its sovereign immunity, there was no basis for judicial review of the levy.

G.E. O'Hara, DC Ind., 98-2 USTC ¶50,807.

A taxpayer's pro se complaint alleging, without evidentiary support, that the IRS failed to give him at least 30 days' notice of its intent to levy before seizing his property was dismissed on summary judgment. Multiple notices placed in evidence by the government established that the taxpayer had received proper notice.

B.M. Overton, DC N.M., 99-1 USTC ¶50,331. Aff'd, CA-10 (unpublished opinion), 2000-1 USTC ¶50,148.

A notice of intent to levy was properly sent by the government and received by the taxpayer. The government was not required to issue a notice of seizure prior to issuing the levy against his bank accounts.

D.L. Long, DC Pa., 99-1 USTC ¶50,399. Aff'd, per curiam, CA-3 (unpublished opinion), 2000-1 USTC ¶50,497.

A taxpayer's claim that the IRS recklessly or intentionally disregarded the Internal Revenue Code by seizing his property without first having a judicial hearing, and that his due process rights were therefore violated, was incorrect because the Code only requires the IRS to notify the taxpayer by certified or registered mail "no less than ten days before the day of the levy." Bivens claims against the IRS agents were dismissed for lack of proper service of process, and no such claims are cognizable against the United States or the IRS.

J.D. Farmer, DC Tex., 99-1 USTC ¶50,469.

The IRS's allegedly faulty notice of a tax lien on property of a delinquent taxpayer did not give a corporation priority status as a judgment lien creditor. Notice to the corporation was inconsequential since, under state (Nebraska) law, it could qualify as a judgment lien creditor only by perfecting its lien against the assets through seizure. However, the IRS acquired constructive possession of the assets as soon as it served notice of levy on the holder of the property, which occurred before the corporation obtained its lien.

Entenmann's, Inc., DC Neb., 99-2 USTC ¶50,639.

An IRS Certificate of Assessment and Payment established that an assessment was procedurally proper, and that the delinquent taxpayer received adequate notice of the assessment and of the IRS's intent to levy.

R.A. Ketcham, DC Colo., 99-2 USTC ¶50,796.

Married taxpayers' contention in a quiet title action that the IRS's notices of deficiency, assessment, lien and levy were invalid because they never received them was rejected in light of evidence showing that, on numerous occasions, they had refused and returned IRS mail. The taxpayers' allegation that the IRS failed to comply with statutory and regulatory notice procedures was not supported by the record. The determination that the government fully complied with the prerequisites for collecting delinquent taxes extended to tax years in which no deficiency notices were issued because the taxpayers either filed a frivolous return or the deficiency was attributable to a mathematical error. Such circumstances obviate the need for such a notice.

J.S. Williamson, DC N.M., 99-2 USTC ¶50,841, 84 FSupp 1217. Aff'd, CA-10 (unpublished opinion), 2000-1 USTC ¶50,504.

The IRS did not have to prove that a taxpayer actually received a notice of levy prior to its seizure of his social security benefits. Government transcripts and testimony established that Certificates of Assessments and Payments regarding a taxpayer's liabilities were sent to him via certified mail.

F.J. Valentine, DC Fla., 99-2 USTC ¶50,984. Aff'd, per curiam, CA-11 (unpublished opinion), 2000-2 USTC ¶50,612.

Summary judgment was properly granted against an individual for his claims in connection with the IRS's levy against a bank account held jointly with his delinquent wife. Because the funds were community property under state (California) law, notice of the levy that was sent to the wife was sufficient as against the husband's interest.

B.A. Buhtz, CA-9 (unpublished opinion), 2000-2 USTC ¶50,637, aff'g an unreported District Court decision.

The IRS was not entitled to summary judgment with regard to a delinquent individual's suit for wrongful seizure of his bank account because it failed to provide him with notice of its intent to levy prior to seizing the funds. What the IRS claimed was a Notice of Intent to Levy was actually labelled a "Fourth Notice of Delinquency." Further, there was no evidence of the manner in which the notice was claimed to have been sent.

C.N. Pereos, DC Nev., 2001-1 USTC ¶50,273.

An individual's motion for reconsideration was denied because he failed to present new evidence that the IRS had not provided him notice of levy. Moreover, he failed to establish any dispositive facts or legal precedent that were overlooked by the court. The taxpayer argued that the judge failed to consider the exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act under Code Sec. 7421 in requesting the court to enjoin a levy placed upon a bank account. However, the appropriate exceptions for consideration were under Code Sec. 6330 and Code Sec. 6331, and neither applied in his case.

T.J. Frain, Jr., DC N.J. (unpublished opinion), 2002-2 USTC ¶50,553.

Testimonial evidence and copies of certificates of assessment produced by the government established that notices of intent to levy and of the opportunity for a Collection Due Process hearing were sent by certified mail to the taxpayer's last known address. Because the documents were properly mailed, it was not necessary that the taxpayer receive or accept the notifications in order for them to be valid.

P.R. Smith, DC Ore., 2003-1 USTC ¶50,281, 250 FSupp2d 1266.

The taxpayer's argument that the levy notification was invalid because it did not contain a certificate of assessment lacked merit, as the IRS was not required to provide a certificate of assessment to the taxpayer.

S.G. Elek, 85 TCM 1170, Dec. 55,116(M), TC Memo. 2003-108.

Taxpayer unsuccessfully argued that the notice of intent to levy was invalid because it was not signed.

P. Everman, 85 TCM 1300, Dec. 55,151(M), TC Memo. 2003-137.

The IRS did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with collection of a nonfiling individual's unpaid tax liabilities. The taxpayer unsuccessfully contended that statements of balance due were not adequate notice and demand under Code Sec. 6331(a) because they used the word "please" rather than "demand" or one of its synonyms.

E.L. Collins, 86 TCM 469, Dec. 55,324(M), TC Memo. 2003-293.

It was irrelevant that a final notice of intent to levy was not signed by the IRS Commissioner, because it was issued and executed by a revenue officer to whom the Commissioner's levy authority had been delegated.

R. Gatlos, 88 TCM 164, Dec. 55,729(M), TC Memo. 2004-192.

A married couple's argument that they did not receive proper notice and demand for payment was without merit because they failed to refute the IRS Appeals officer's verification that proper notice and demand for payment was sent and accepted by their housekeeper and was also mailed to their last known address. The taxpayers need not be given a 30-day notice before a levy action because collection of tax was in jeopardy.

M.A. Zapara, 124 TC 233, Dec. 56,023.

Individuals' claim that notices of levy were improperly issued without a court order was rejected and their request for a preliminary injunction to prevent their employers from garnishing their wages and turning the funds over to the IRS was denied. The taxpayers argument that a recently decided case concerning summons procedure rendered the administrative levy and distraint procedures void was rejected. Rather, because they refused to pay taxes determined by the IRS to be due, the IRS could file a levy on their property and wages without the need for judicial enforcement.

S. Celauro, Jr., DC N.Y., 2005-2 USTC ¶50,475.

A taxpayer could not claim that his failure to file a timely wrongful levy action was the result of not having notice that the IRS intended to levy his personal assets. The taxpayer had received such notice and, in response, had tried first to arrange an installment plan and, when that failed, filed a collection appeal request.

S.D. Young, DC N.Y., 2005-2 USTC ¶50,608.

A levy against a third-party insurance agency with respect to its president's salary was enforced and a penalty imposed for failure to comply with the levy. The president got the notice but ignored it, all the while dealing with the IRS on his own. He never told the agency's other owners about the levy and never acted it on it. The fact that the IRS sent the notice through regular mail rather than by certified or registered mail as required by Code Sec. 6331(d)(2) did not preclude enforcement of the levy or imposition of the penalty.

MPM Financial Group, Inc., DC Ky., 2005-2 USTC ¶50,650. Aff'd, per curiam, CA-6 (unpublished opinion), 2007-1 USTC ¶50,288.

A taxpayer failed to prevent an IRS levy action by claiming that the IRS failed to comply with notice requirements of Code Sec. 6331. The IRS had, in fact, sent the taxpayer a timely notice of intent to levy.

W. Leggett, 92 TCM 551, Dec. 56,712(M), TC Memo. 2006-277.

An individual's collection review action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the IRS's final notice of intent to levy was invalid. It was not mailed to the taxpayer's last known address, and the taxpayer never received the notice. Although the IRS had the correct mailing information, the notice was sent to the taxpayer's prior address.

D. Buffano, 93 TCM 901, Dec. 56,833(M), TC Memo. 2007-32.

A limited liability company was unlikely to succeed on its claim that the government wrongfully levied upon its property because of the IRS's failure to provide notice to both the delinquent taxpayer and the alleged nominee in contravention of Code Sec. 6331. It did not cite any authority to support its claim and the plain language of the statute indicates that the law only requires notice to the taxpayer.

Sharp Management, LLC, DC Wash., 2007-1 USTC ¶50,511.

An individual's suit seeking review of the IRS's collection actions was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the IRS's final notice of intent to levy and notice of federal tax lien filing (NFTL) were invalid. The taxpayer did not receive the notice of intent to levy and NFTL because they were not mailed to his last known address. The IRS knew, or should have known, the taxpayer's correct address because he had previously verified his address in response to the IRS's request for updated information.

P.J. Kennedy, Dec. 57,337(M), TC Memo. 2008-33.