- 11 -
appealable)--have expressly rejected the argument that ERISA
antialienation provisions preclude enforcement of a Federal tax
levy. See, e.g., United States v. Novak, 476 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir.
2007); United States IRS v. Snyder, 343 F.3d 1171, 1179 (9th Cir.
2003); McIntyre v. United States, 222 F.3d 655, 660 (9th Cir.
2000); Anderson v. United States, 149 Bankr. 591, 595 (B.A.P. 9th
Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Sawaf, 74 F.3d 119 (6th
Cir. 1996); Shanbaum v. United States, 32 F.3d 180 (5th Cir.
1994).
Finally, petitioner argues that her alleged interest in the
ERISA-qualified plan does not constitute “property [or] rights to
property” for the purpose of section 6321 and thus is not subject
to lien or levy. We need not pass on the merits of this
argument: As noted supra, at the section 6330 hearing and at
trial, petitioner failed to introduce any evidence to support her
claim that she transferred the funds in her IRA into an ERISA-
qualified pension plan. We therefore conclude that no evidence
in petitioner’s control would establish that petitioner’s
interest does not remain subject to the Federal tax liens. See
Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner has failed to raise a spousal defense, make a
valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent’s intended
collection, or offer alternative means of collection. We
therefore uphold respondent’s determination to proceed with
collection of petitioner’s 1997 and 1998 income tax liabilities.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007