DEALING WITH THE
IRS COLLECTION DIVISION
FEDERAL TAX LIENS --
Part I ©
Burton
J. Haynes, Attorney at Law1
The federal tax lien is at the heart
of all enforced collection action taken
by the IRS Collection Division. Accordingly,
representing clients requires an understanding
of how the lien arises, the kinds of
property to which it attaches, the consequences
of such attachment, the duration of the
lien, the priority of the tax lien over
the interests of other claimants to the
taxpayer's property, and the circumstances
under which the IRS will removed or subordinate
the lien. This is the first of a two-part
article which will introduce these essential
topics.
Nature of
the lien
A lien is an encumbrance in favor of
one party upon the property of another,
in this case a "statutory" lien based
on §6321 of the Internal Revenue
Code.2 The
lien arises when the taxpayer fails to
pay any tax after notice and demand by
the IRS for payment. The lien "relates
back," and is thus effective from the
date of assessment, and it continues
in force until the assessment is paid
in full or becomes unenforceable,3 as
for example, by the expiration of the
statute of limitations on collections.4
Notice
of federal tax lien
The filing of a notice5 publicly
announcing the existence of the federal
tax lien is not required; the lien itself,
sometimes called the "secret lien," exists
as a matter of law, and can be perfected
even without the filing of a notice.
However, filing has significance in establishing
the IRS's priority against other claimants
to the taxpayer's property, such as purchasers,
holders of security interests or mechanic's
liens, or judgment creditors.6
IRC 6323(f) provides rules for the place
of filing for a notice of federal tax
lien against both real and personal property.
For real property, the notice is filed
in the office designated by the state
where the property is located. In Maryland,
as in most states, this means that the
notice is filed with the land records
in the county in which the property is
located. The residence of a corporation
or partnership is the place where the
principal office is located.7 A
notice of federal tax lien for a taxpayer
who resides abroad is filed with the
Recorder of Deeds for the District of
Columbia.
Under some circumstances a lien must
be "refiled." To remove any doubt about
whether a lien is still enforceable when
the notice shows the assessment is more
than ten years old, the IRS must refile
within a one year period ending ten years
and 30 days after the date of assessment.8 Failure
to refile at the appropriate time does
not disturb the validity of the lien,
but it does nullify the legal effect
of the prior filing. In the case of a
late refiling, any security interest
arising after the prior filing but before
the refiling obtains a priority to the
same extent as if no notice of tax lien
had been filed prior to the time of the
late refiling.
Clients will sometimes point to minor
errors in the information on tax lien
notices, hoping that such errors invalidate
the lien. With regard to the name, the
relevant question is not whether it is
the taxpayer's exact legal name, but
whether it is sufficient to put a third
party on notice of the existence of a
federal tax lien against the taxpayer.
Thus, a notice filed in a nickname has
been held to be sufficient to charge
a prospective purchaser with constructive
notice of the existence the lien.9 Nevertheless,
some courts have held that a minor misspelling
of the taxpayer's name renders the notice
ineffective.10
Scope of
the lien
The federal tax lien attaches to "all
property and rights to property" of the
person or entity liable for the tax.11 This
broad statutory language has been interpreted
to include real, personal and intangible
property of greatly varying natures,
as well as future interests, and even
property acquired by the taxpayer after
the lien has come into existence.12 Thus,
the initial inquiry in determining whether
something is encumbered by a tax lien
is whether the taxpayer has a "interest" in
the property sufficient to support the
attachment of the lien. The question
of the nature and extent of the taxpayer's
interest in property is one which turns
on the law of the state in which the
property is located. As explained by
the Supreme Court in Aquilino v. U.S.:
The threshold question in this
case, as in all cases where the Federal
Government asserts its tax lien,
is whether and to what extent the
taxpayer had "property" or "rights
to property" to which the tax lien
could attach. In answering that question,
both federal and state courts must
look to state law, for it has long
been the rule that "in the application
of a federal revenue act, state law
controls in determining the nature
of the legal interest which the taxpayer
had in the property sought to be
reached by the statute."13
However, once the taxpayer's property
interest has been defined and deemed
to exist under state law, it is federal
law which then determines the consequences
flowing from the federal tax lien as
to that property right.14
Most encumbrances on or interests in
a taxpayer's property, if properly perfected
prior to the date on which the federal
tax lien arises, have priority over the
lien.15 Notice
of the lien must be filed before it has
priority over most subsequently perfected
interests in the taxpayer's property.
But once the notice is filed, the federal
tax lien takes priority over all but
a few subsequently arising interests
in the taxpayer's property. Remember,
the lien itself does not transfer or
convey the taxpayer's property to the
IRS. Such transfer of ownership is accomplished
either through a judicial foreclosure
of the lien, or through an administrative
action such as a levy.
Liens on
real property
Many questions about the impact of the
federal tax lien involve real estate,
and the reach of the Service's lien often
turns on the particular form in which
ownership is held, especially where there
is more than one owner. In Maryland (as
in Virginia and D.C.), two or more persons
can own real property as "joint tenants" or
as "tenants in common." In addition,
married persons can hold property in
a special form of joint tenancy called "tenants
by the entireties." Regardless of the
nature of title, if a tax lien is outstanding
against all those who share the ownership
of the property, the tax lien will attach
to and may be foreclosed against the
entire property. But this is not the
case for some forms of ownership when
one co-owner is the subject of the lien
and the others are not, as for example
where one spouse owes taxes for which
the other spouse is not liable. This
situation can come about in many ways,
including the following:
H owes income taxes arising prior
to his marriage to W. (Marriage does
not make W liable for H's taxes, nor
does it subject her property to H's
tax lien.)
H and W file their income tax returns "married
filing separately," with only one spouse
owing tax.
H has been hit with the IRC §6672
trust fund recovery penalty, but W
had nothing to do with H's business
and is not liable.
H and W file a joint income tax return
and the IRS assesses a deficiency,
but W is later exonerated under the
IRC §6015 innocent spouse rules.16
In all forms of joint tenancy, two or
more persons become the owners of property
in equal and undivided shares. Often,
the deed establishing a joint tenancy
will recite the interests as "joint tenancy
with right of survivorship." State laws
differ as to whether joint tenancy alone
implies a right of survivorship if not
so stated.17 Where
only one joint tenant owes taxes, the
lien attaches to his or her interest,
and this interest can be sold. The majority
of courts have held that the entire property
may be sold and the proceeds divided
with the other joint owner, rather than
selling only the taxpayer's undivided
interest.18 If
the person against whom a federal tax
lien is outstanding predeceases the other
joint tenants, the tax lien will cease
to attach to the property.19 However,
if that individual happens to be the
survivor, the lien will attach to the
entire property in his hands.
A tenancy in common, in contrast to
a joint tenancy with right of survivorship,
results in undivided interests in property
without the right to succeed to the ownership
of the undivided interest held by a deceased
co-tenant. Thus, once a federal tax lien
has attached to one tenant's interest,
the lien will survive his or her death
and will continue to encumber the decedent's
interest in the property as it passes
into the hands of his or her heirs.
A tenancy by the entirety is similar
to the joint tenancy with right of survivorship,
except that it can exist only between
a husband and wife. An important characteristic
is that the property is deemed owned
not by either spouse, but by a fictional
entity referred to as the "marital unity." Upon
the death of either spouse, the whole
of the estate vests in the survivor.
This occurs not because the survivor
receives any new property interest, but
because in the first instance he or she
took the entirety which, under the common
law, was to remain in the survivor. In
Maryland, Virginia and the District of
Columbia, a lien for a debt owed by only
one of the spouses will not attach to
property held as tenants by the entireties,20 although
joint creditors (such as the IRS if both
spouses are liable for the tax in question)
can still reach such property.21
Liens on
personal property
In addition to real estate, tangible
personal property can be subject to the
federal tax lien. The notice of lien
is recorded in the county where the taxpayer
resides at the time it is filed. If the
notice is properly filed, the lien follows
the personalty wherever it is thereafter
located.
The most common kind of personalty subjected
to the federal tax lien is a bank account.
Difficult issues arise when accounts
are held jointly by the taxpayer and
one or more other persons. With a typical
joint account, all co-holders have an
unrestricted right to make withdrawals
in amounts up to and including the entire
balance, regardless of who deposited
the funds into the account. The Supreme
Court has held that this unrestricted
right of withdrawal is a property right
to which the federal tax lien attaches.22 Thus,
in response to an IRS levy, the bank
must pay over the full balance. The "true
owner,"however, can file a wrongful levy
action to recover his or her part of
the funds.
Liens on
trusts and terminable interests
Other important and interesting problems
are presented by the application of the
federal tax lien to the taxpayer's interest
in a trust. In general, the IRS's lien
attaches to whatever interest the taxpayer
has in the trust. It is therefore necessary
to carefully examine the trust instrument
itself, with the appropriate state law
governing construction of the terms of
the instrument and the resolution of
any ambiguities. In some cases, the federal
tax lien will attach to the corpus of
the trust and to the income payable to
the beneficiary. In other cases, the
lien will attach only to the income as
it becomes payable to the beneficiary.
And in a few cases the federal tax lien
may not attach to either the income or
the corpus.
A so-called "spendthrift" trust may,
by its terms, confer certain benefits
upon a beneficiary, but then purport
to restrict the rights of creditors to
reach those benefits. Nevertheless, in
construing the reach of the federal tax
lien, a trust instrument can only determine
the nature and extent of the beneficiary's
property right in the trust's corpus
and income; it cannot control the effect
of the federal tax lien upon that right.
Thus, if the trust gives the taxpayer-beneficiary
an enforceable right to the trust's income
or corpus, any trust provision purporting
to place that right beyond the reach
of the taxpayer's creditors is generally
not effective against the federal tax
lien, regardless of whether the applicable
state law recognizes spendthrift trusts
as against other creditors.23
Some spendthrift trusts may constitute "protective
trusts," in that under their terms any
effort by a creditor to assert a lien
on the trust corpus, or on distributions
to the beneficiary, causes the forfeiture
of the beneficiary's rights, and the
trustee is thereafter given complete
discretion to accumulate income or to
distribute the income among some group
that may or may not include the prior
beneficiary. Since the beneficiary then
has no right to the income until the
trustee decides when and how to distribute
it, the beneficiary has no property right
to which the lien may attach.24 Accordingly,
the safest arrangement, at least with
regard to a potential tax lien against
a beneficiary, is a fully discretionary
trust under which the beneficiary has
no right to compel the trustee to make
distributions of income or corpus.25
Sometimes a taxpayer holds a "terminable
interest," such as a life estate in property
which ends on the death of the person
holding the right. In the case of a life
estate, the lien attaches to the life
tenant's interest, and may be enforced
against that interest as long as the
life tenant is alive. But upon the death
of the life tenant the lien ceases to
attach to the property, and it passes
free of the lien to the remaindermen.
Liens on intangibles
Intangible property is also subject
to the federal tax lien. Such property
includes licenses, franchises, debts
owed to the taxpayer, and any other such "chose
in action." A chose in action is a personal
right not reduced to possession and recoverable
by a suit at law. The tort claim which
you have against someone who has wrongfully
injured you is an example of a chose
in action.
Life insurance proceeds are generally
not subject to the federal tax lien because
the proceeds are paid only on death,
and therefore are not owned during the
taxpayer's lifetime.26 The
cash surrender value of a life insurance
policy, however, can be reached by the
federal tax lien. Indeed, the cash surrender
value remains encumbered even after the
death of the insured, and the Service
can recover from the policy proceeds
to the extent of its pre-death lien on
the cash surrender value.27
The taxpayer's right to receive alimony
payments is also a property right to
which the federal tax lien may attach.28 In
contrast, however, child support payments
are not subject to the Service's lien;
they are deemed the property of the child,
and not property of the taxpayer parent.
Exemptions
In general, no property or right to
property is "exempt" from the reach of
the federal tax lien. Although IRC §6334
provides certain limited exemptions from
seizure pursuant to an IRS levy, that
is an entirely different question than
whether such property becomes encumbered
by the Service's lien. Furthermore, the
only relevant exclusions are those provided
for in the Internal Revenue Code; individual
states cannot enact exemption laws which
limit the reach of the federal tax lien.29 This
is why state statutes, such as Maryland's
law protecting retirement accounts and
IRAs from creditors, are not effective
in protecting the same assets from the
Internal Revenue Service.30
Conclusion
The federal tax lien is exceedingly
broad in scope, and reaches property
and rights to property which are often
protected from the claims of other creditors.
Understanding the impact of the lien
on a client's assets is essential to
mapping an effective strategy for resolving
the client's tax problems.
In the second part of this article,
to be published in the next issue of The
Freestate Accountant, we will examine
the priority of the federal tax lien
against other claimants to interests
in a taxpayer's property. This will include
the various "superpriority" provisions
and the complex lien priority rules governing
commercial financing arrangements. In
addition, we will discuss the mechanics
of seeking the release, discharge, subordination
or withdrawal of the federal tax lien.
1 Mr.
Haynes is an attorney with
offices in Burke, VA,
and Burtonsville, MD, and is a member of the Maryland Society
of Accountants' Newsletter
Committee. From 1973
to 1981 he was a Special
Agent with the IRS Criminal
Investigation Division
in Baltimore, and in 1980
was named "Criminal
Investigator of the Year" by
the Association of Federal
Investigators. He
specializes in civil and
criminal tax disputes and
litigation, IRS collection
problems, and the tax aspects
of bankruptcy and divorce. (phone
703-913-7500; website www.bjhaynes.com)
2 In
addition to the general tax lien,
there are special liens for estate
and gift taxes, arising at the date
of death or the date of the gift.
See IRC §6324.
4 IRC §6502.
The limitations period was increased
from six years to ten years effective
November 5, 1990, by the Revenue
Reconciliation Act of 1990, and can
be extended in various ways, such
as by the execution of an extension
agreement, or by the filing of an
offer in compromise or a petition
in bankruptcy.
7 D'Antoni,
Inc. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co., Inc., 496 F.2d 1378
(5th Cir. 1974); see also Rev.
Rul. 74-571.
9 Hannus
v. U.S., (W.D. Wash. 1958)
60-2 USTC 77,485.
10 In U.S.
v. Friedlander, 235 F. 2d 753
(5th Cir. 1956), the lien was upheld
although the name was spelled "Freidlander" instead
of "Friedlander." But liens were
held invalid where filed against "Ruby
Luggage" rather than "S. Ruby Luggage," U.S.
v. Ruby Luggage, 142 F. Supp.
701 (S.D.N.Y. 1954), and where
the taxpayer's name was spelled "Manual
Castillo" instead of "Manuel Castillo," Haye
v. U.S., 416 F. Supp. 1168
(C.D., Cal. 1979). Also, a notice
filed against "W.B. Clark, Sr.," was
defective when the taxpayer's name
was "W.R. Clarke, Sr." Continental
Investments v. U.S., 142 F.
Supp. 542 (W.D. Tenn. 1953).
12 Regs. §301.6321-1.
See also Glass City Bank v. U.S,,
326 U.S. 265 (1945).
13 Aquilino
v. U.S., 363 U.S. 509 (1960).
14 Federal
law also defines the priority of
competing claims to property after
it is determined under state law
that a property right exists. Aquilino,
supra.; see also U.S. v. Acri,
348 U.S. 211 (1955).
15 The
priority of the federal tax lien
versus other claimants will be discussed
in more detail in Part II of this
article.
16 See
also the author's previous articles
in The Freestate Accountant describing
the innocent spouse rules.
17 In
Maryland, there is a statutory presumption
against joint tenancy "unless the
deed . . . expressly provides that
the property granted is to be held
in joint tenancy." See §2-117of
the Real Property Article. Failure
to state that the tenancy is with
the right of survivorship requires
an inquiry into the intent of the
parties, with the presumption in
favor of finding a mere tenancy in
common without such survivorship
rights. Similarly, in Virginia the
conveyance of property in joint tenancy
without additional language of survivorship
results in a mere tenancy in common.
18 U.S.
v. Kocher, 468 F. 2d 503 (2d
Cir. 1972), cert. den. 411 U.S.
931 (1973); Washington v. U.S.,
402 F. 2d 3 (4th Cir. 1968), cert.
den., 402 U.S. 978 (1971); Contra,
see Folsom v. U.S., 306
F. 2d 361 (5th Cir. 1962).
19 The
reason is that the interest of a
joint tenant with right of survivorship
as a type of "terminable interest." The
survivorship feature extinguishes
the taxpayer's property right upon
his death. In that event the property
interest disappears, and there is
nothing left to which the lien can
attach. See Parsons v. Anglim,
143 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1944).
20 State
v. Friedman, 283 Md. 701, 705-06,
393 A.2d 1356 (1978); Annapolis
Banking & Trust Co. v. Neilson,
164 Md. 8, 9-10, 164 A. 157 (1933); Ades
v. Caplin, 132 Md. 66, 69,
103 A. 94 (1918); Jordan v.
Reynolds, 105 Md. 288, 294,
66 A. 37 (1907).
21 This
ability to protect real estate from
separate creditors, including the
IRS, is one of the crucial rights
given up by the filing of joint income
tax returns. This is why the author
often cautions against the filing
of joint tax returns except where
the tax has or will be paid in full,
and where there is little risk of
subsequent audit adjustments. Especially
when a group of tax returns is being
filed for a delinquent taxpayer who
is trying to get himself back into
compliance, and the amount due exceeds
his ability to pay, careful consideration
must be given to filing "married
filing separately" to protect joint
property.
22 U.S.
v. National Bank of Commerce,
472 U.S. 713 (1985); IRS v.
Gaster, 94-2 USTC &50,622
(3d Cir. 1994) (holding that IRS
cannot levy against a joint bank
account where the delinquent taxpayer
lacks the right to make a unilateral
withdrawal of the funds).
23 Maryland
accepts the use of spendthrift clauses
subject to certain exceptions. See Watterson
v. Edgerly, 388 A.2d 934, 935-36
(Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1978). If income
is withheld under such a clause,
the beneficiary may sue to get it;
therefore there is a property right
to which the federal tax lien can
attach.
24 Nichols
v. Eaton, 91 U.S. 716, 722-25
(1875) (protective trust, after
forfeiture, confers no right which
a court would enforce). But see McGavern
v. U.S., 550 F.2d 797 (2d Cir.),
cert. den., 434 U.S. 826 (1977)
(lien effective against trust in
which income payments were not
completely discretionary with the
trustee). Many courts have held
that a simple spendthrift trust
cannot defeat a tax lien. First
Northwestern Trust Co. v. IRS,
622 F.2d 387 (8th Cir. 1980). One
court has held that a spendthrift
trust with a forfeiture clause
is not effective to defeat a federal
tax lien. U.S. v. Taylor,
254 F. Supp. 752 (N.D. Cal. 1966).
It reached this result after balancing
the state property law policies
against the needs of federal tax
collection, as called for in Aquilino
v. U.S., 363 U.S. at 513-14
(1960). Some courts have found
that it would be offensive and
disruptive to federal tax law for
a beneficiary to receive an income
stream for years without paying
taxes on it, only to have that
income stream disappear once the
IRS moves against it. U.S. v.
Riggs National Bank, 636 F.Supp.
172 (D.D.C. 1986).
25 See First
of America Trust Co. v. U.S.,
93-2 USTC &50,507 (1993). If
the instrument creates a discretionary
trust, under Maryland law there
is no interest in the trust corpus
to which the lien can attach because
even the beneficiary could not
invade the corpus. The beneficiary
of a discretionary trust cannot
compel payments of the principal
by the trustee absent a showing
of dishonesty on the part of the
trustee. First National Bank
of Maryland v. Dept. of Health
and Mental Hygiene, 399 A.2d
891, 894 (Md. 1979). It follows
that a creditor cannot compel payment
of the principal of a discretionary
trust because the beneficiary could
not compel such payment. The IRS,
through its lien, has no greater
right to the property than the
taxpayer has at the time the tax
lien arises. U.S. v. Durham
Lumber Co., 363 U.S. 522, 525-26
(1958).
26 U.S.
v. Bess, 357 U.S. 51 (1958).
27 Kovacs
v. U.S. 355 F.2d 349 (9th Cir.
1966), cert. den., 384 U.S. 941
(1966).
28 U.S.
v. Rye, 550 F.2d 682 (1st Cir.
1977); Rev. Rul. 53-89.
29 U.S.
v. Bess, supra.; U.S. v.
Stern, 357 U.S. 39 (1958); U.S.
v. Heffron, 158 F.2d 657 (9th
Cir.) cert. den., 331 U.S. 831
(1947).
30 IRAs
are levied only if the taxpayer flagrantly
disregards payment requests. IRM
536(14).1.