- 14 -
that section 7491 refers only to “any factual issue relevant to
ascertaining the liability of the taxpayer for any tax imposed by
subtitle A or B” and does not apply to this proceeding, which is
established under subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code. Our
decision in this case does not depend on which party has the
burden of proof. We resolve the factual issue on the
preponderance of the evidence in the record.
In Corwin Consultants, Inc. v. Interpublic Group of Cos.,
512 F.2d 605 (2d Cir. 1975), the Court of Appeals reviewed the
legislative history of section 6323(f), which establishes the
place of filing for Federal tax liens such as those in dispute
here. Noting that “residence” can have many different meanings
depending on the context in which it is used, the Court of
Appeals emphasized that the purpose of the statutory provisions
for filing in the State of a taxpayer’s residence was “to ease
the burden for creditors in searching for federal tax liens and
for the IRS in filing notices of such liens.” Id. at 610. The
Court stated:
In light of this purpose, the residence of a delinquent
taxpayer is a question of fact to be determined by
various criteria: Among them are the taxpayer’s
physical presence as an inhabitant and not a mere
transient, Myers v. Commissioner, 180 F.2d 969, 971
(4th Cir. 1950); the permanence of that presence, In re
Watson, 99 F. Supp. 49, 54 (W.D. Ark. 1951); the reason
for his presence; and the existence of other
residences. In general, for this statute, where a
taxpayer resides is where he dwells for a significant
amount of time and where creditors would be most likely
to look for him. What proportion of time is
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011