Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/368/291/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 05:50:57+00:00

Document:
taxpayers. [Footnote 1] Some 10 months after the Government's tax lien arose, Mr. and Mrs. Peters executed a mortgage on real property they owned in Oakland County to secure an indebtedness to the respondent Union Central Life Insurance Company. They defaulted in payment of the mortgage, and Union Central filed this action to foreclose in the Circuit Court of Oakland County, joining the United States as a party defendant because of its asserted lien.
"in the office in which the filing of such notice is authorized by the law of the State or Territory in which the property subject to the lien is situated, whenever the State or Territory has by law authorized the filing of such notice in an office within the State or Territory."
"it was the policy of the office of the Register of Deeds for said County of Oakland not to accept for recording notices of Federal tax liens which did not contain a legal description of any land."
Because the United States had not filed a notice complying with the Michigan law, the Michigan Circuit and Supreme Courts held the federal lien to be subordinate to the mortgage, 361 Mich. 283, 105 N.W.2d 196. While this holding is in accord with Youngblood v. United States, 141 F.2d 912 (C.A.6th Cir.), it conflicts with United States v. Rasmuson, 253 F.2d 944 (C.A.8th Cir.). In order to settle this conflict and because of the importance of the question in the administration of the revenue laws, we granted certiorari. 365 U. S. 858.
of the states." United States v. Snyder, 149 U. S. 210, 149 U. S. 214. While § 3672(a)(1) unquestionably requires notice of a federal lien to be filed in a state office when the State authoritatively designates an office for that purpose, the section does not purport to permit the State to prescribe the form or the contents of that notice. Since such an authorization might well result in radically differing forms of federal tax notices for the various States, it would run counter to the principle of uniformity which has long been the accepted practice in the field of federal taxation. Moreover, a required compliance with Michigan law would mean that the federal tax lien would be superior to all those entitled to notice only as to the property described in the notice, even though § 3670 broadly creates a lien "upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to" a taxpayer. This language has been held to include in the lien all property owned by the delinquent taxpayer both at the time the lien arises and thereafter until it is paid. [Footnote 4] It seems obvious that this expansive protection for the Government would be greatly reduced if, to enforce it, government agents were compelled to keep aware at all times of all property coming into the hands of its tax delinquents. Imposition of such a task by the Michigan law could seriously cripple the Government in the collection of its taxes, and to attribute to Congress a purpose so to weaken the tax liens it has created would require very clear language. The history of § 3672 belies any such congressional purpose.
"in accordance with the law of the State or Territory in which the property subject to the lien is situated, whenever the State or Territory has by law provided for the filing of such notice. . . . [Footnote 6]"
(Emphasis supplied.) Following this, in United States v. Maniaci, 36 F.Supp. 293, aff'd, 116 F.2d 935, both a United States District Court and a Court of Appeals refused to enforce a federal tax lien on Michigan property because the notice of lien, although filed both in a District Court and in the office of the proper Michigan register of deeds, did not contain the description of the property required by Michigan law. In this holding, emphasis was placed on the clause added in 1928, requiring notice to be filed "in accordance with the law of the State of Territory in which the property subject to the lien is situated. . . ."
Sections 3670 and 3671 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, in effect at that time.
Act 104, Public Acts of Michigan of 1923, repealed April 13, 1956, by Act 107, Public Acts of Michigan of 1956.
Act 104 was repealed April 13, 1956.
Glass City Bank v. United States, 326 U. S. 265.
56 Stat. 957, § 3672(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, as amended.
H.R.Rep. No. 2333, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. 173. See also S.Rep. No. 1631, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. 248.
Section 6323(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
H.R.Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. A406-A407.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3672
 § 3670
 § 3672
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3672