Joseph F. and Caroline Enos - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
               MMI regarding its payment to the Internal Revenue                      
               Service.  It is noted that there are documents in the                  
               file indicating that you received payment on the                       
               account receivable of MMI subsequent to the levy.                      
               Accordingly, it is my determination that you have not                  
               proven that the service exercised “dominion and                        
               control” over the MMI receivable.                                      
                                   Discussion                                         
              Petitioners, relying on United States v. Eiland, 223 F.2d               
         118 (4th Cir. 1955), contend that the August 15, 1978, notice of             
         levy issued to MMI before MMI’s involuntary bankruptcy had the               
         effect of an immediate seizure by the United States of the                   
         account receivable.  Petitioners contend that, under Eiland,                 
         respondent’s notice of levy on the account receivable, an                    
         intangible asset, had the effect of transferring to respondent               
         the amount necessary to pay petitioners’ tax liability.                      
         Moreover, petitioners contend that the August 15, 1978, notice of            
         levy provided respondent with possession of the account                      
         receivable, which satisfied petitioners’ tax liability in whole.             
         Petitioners rely on Phelps v. United States, 421 U.S. 330 (1975);            
         In re Pittsburgh Penguins Partners, 598 F.2d 1299 (3d Cir. 1979);            
         In re Cherry Valley Homes, Inc., 255 F.2d 706 (3d Cir. 1958); and            
         United States v. Eiland, supra, arguing that, because these cases            
         arose under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, they should be                       
         controlling.  Additionally, petitioners contend that the August              
         15, 1978, notice of levy transferred ownership under section 6331            








Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011