- 47 -
a. Caselaw
Domestic relations are preeminently matters of State law,
and the Supreme Court has consistently recognized that Congress,
rarely intends to displace State authority in this area. Mansell
v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 587 (1989) (addressing the application
of California community property law to military retirement pay).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court stated: “we have held that we
will not find preemption absent evidence that it is positively
required by direct enactment.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
The plain and precise language of section 6015 evidences its
preemption of State community property laws. Sec. 6015(a), (g);
see Mansell v. Mansell, supra at 587, 590-591, 592. Section
6015(a) and (g) contains clear and unequivocal language
expressing congressional intent to preempt State law. Mansell v.
Mansell, supra at 587; Dunkin v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 180, 189
(2005).
Although not discussed in detail by the majority, majority
op. pp. 7 n.5, 18, respondent relies on United States v. Stolle,
86 AFTR 2d 5180, 2000-1 USTC par. 50,329 (C.D. Cal. 2000), and
McIntyre v. United States, 222 F.3d 655 (9th Cir. 2000), for the
proposition that a Federal tax lien attaches to community
property and that section 6321 takes precedence over section
6015. I disagree. I believe section 6015 is clear and the
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011