- 9 -
paid out by Ms. Johnson were for administrative expenses or a
family allowance entitled to priority over the tax debt. Because
the record contains no stipulated facts to this effect, we are
unable to make such a finding.
We are also unable to conclude on this record that the
analysis set forth by the Supreme Court in United States v.
Estate of Romani, supra, impacts the outcome in this case.5 In
Estate of Romani, the Government argued it was entitled to
priority over a judgment lien creditor under 31 U.S.C. section
3713, notwithstanding that it lacked priority under the Federal
Tax Lien Act of 1966 Pub. L. 89-719, 80 Stat. 1125 (as codified
in sections 6321-6327). The Supreme Court held that the Federal
Tax Lien Act of 1966 controlled the priority of the competing
liens, not the Federal priority statute. Coincidentally, the
judgment creditor in Estate of Romani obtained its judgment from
a division of the same court in which the two judgments herein
were entered, the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. The
judgment creditor in Estate of Romani acquired a valid lien on
the judgment debtor's property by recording the judgment in
accordance with Pennsylvania law. See United States v. Estate of
5Respondent argues United States v. Estate of Romani, 523
U.S. 517 (1998), supports his position, and he provides a lengthy
analysis of why the Federal tax liens have priority over the
judgments of Benton Dental and Ms. Johnson for child support.
Petitioner argues the Estate of Romani case supports its position
that the judgments should be paid first.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011