- 10 -
status, or its location.5 We therefore conclude that no evidence
in petitioner’s possession would establish that petitioner
transferred the funds in her IRA into an ERISA-qualified pension
plan.
Additionally, petitioner’s argument that the lien on the IRA
was extinguished when petitioner transferred the funds in the IRA
into an ERISA-qualified pension plan is incorrect. As respondent
correctly notes: “The transfer of property subsequent to the
attachment of the lien does not affect the lien, for ‘it is of
the very nature and essence of a lien, that no matter into whose
hands the property goes, it passes cum onere’.” United States v.
Bess, 357 U.S. 51, 57 (1958) (quoting Burton v. Smith, 38 U.S.
464, 483 (1839)); see also Michigan v. United States, 317 U.S.
338, 340 (1943); United States v. Morrison, 29 U.S. 124 (1830).
Petitioner also argues that the antialienation provisions of
ERISA prevent respondent from levying against petitioner’s
alleged interest in the ERISA-qualified pension plan. Numerous
courts--including, on several occasions, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (to which this case is
5 For example, on Mar. 9, 2005, in response to a letter
from respondent requesting information about petitioner’s IRA
funds, petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Preovolos, informed respondent
only that “Currently the asset that you seek to levy is
unavailable.” The record also indicates that Chapters, Inc., the
employer that allegedly administered the ERISA-qualified plan,
was formed in 2004, while petitioner was disputing the liens on
her IRA before respondent. The mailing address for Chapters,
Inc., appears to be petitioner’s personal mailing address.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007