Joseph F. and Caroline Enos - Page 22

                                       - 22 -                                         
         the rights of third parties until after the levy is made, in                 
         postseizure administrative or judicial hearings.”  Id. (examining            
         United States v. Rodgers, supra at 696); see also United States              
         v. Whiting Pools, Inc., supra at 211.8  Thus, the effect of the              
         levy in the instant case is to bring the account receivable into             
         respondent’s legal custody.  See United States v. Natl. Bank of              
         Commerce, supra at 721 (“property comes into the constructive                


         (...continued)                                                               
               rights to property, he may seize and sell such property or             
               rights to property (whether real or personal, tangible or              
               intangible). [Emphasis added.]                                         
               8In Whiting Pools, Inc. v. United States, supra at 210-211,            
          the Supreme Court stated:                                                   
                    The Service’s interest in seized property is its lien             
               on that property.  The Internal Revenue Code’s levy and                
               seizure provisions, � 6331 and 6332, are special procedural            
               devices available to the IRS to protect and satisfy its                
               liens, United States v. Sullivan, 333 F.2d 100, 116 (CA 3              
               1964), and are analogous to the remedies available to                  
               private secured creditors.  See Uniform Commercial Code � 9-           
               503, 3A U.L.A. 211-212 (1981); n.14, supra.  They are                  
               provisional remedies that do not determine the Service’s               
               rights to the seized property, but merely bring the property           
               into the Service’s legal custody.  See 4 B. Bittker, Federal           
               Taxation of Income, Estates and Gifts � 111.5.5, p. 111-108            
               (1981).  See generally Plumb, Federal Tax Collection and               
               Lien Problems (First Installment), 13 Tax L. Rev. 247, 272             
               (1958).  * * *  The IRS is obligated to return to the debtor           
               any surplus from a sale.  � 6342(b).  Ownership of the                 
               property is transferred only when the property is sold to a            
               bona fide purchaser at a tax sale.  See Bennett v. Hunter, 9           
               Wall. 326, 336 (1870); � 6339(a)(2); Plumb, 13 Tax L. Rev.,            
               at 274-275.   In fact, the tax sale provision itself refers            
               to the debtor as the owner of the property after the seizure           
               but prior to the sale.  Until such a sale takes place, the             
               property remains the debtor’s and thus is subject to the               
               turnover requirement of sec. 542(a). [Fn. ref. omitted.]               





Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011