Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/535/135/23525/
Timestamp: 2020-08-11 04:45:25
Document Index: 419239801

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1922', '§ 1921', '§ 6323', '§ 3672', '§ 6323', '§ 3672', '§ 3672']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Eduardo Flores, Defendant-appellee, 535 F.2d 135 (1st Cir. 1976) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › First Circuit › 1976 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Eduardo Flores, Defendant-appellee
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Eduardo Flores, Defendant-appellee, 535 F.2d 135 (1st Cir. 1976)
US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit - 535 F.2d 135 (1st Cir. 1976) May 5, 1976
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, MATTHES** , Senior Circuit Judge, and McENTEE, Circuit Judge.
Careful analysis of Chapter 91 of Title 30 reveals that § 1922 is the only section designating a place for filing notices of liens. It designates with precision the place for filing notices of liens on real property. Neither that section nor § 1921 designates specifically the place for filing notices as to personal property. However, § 6323(f) clearly requires such a specific designation. We are guided by the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Union Central Life Insurance Co., 368 U.S. 291, 82 S. Ct. 349, 7 L. Ed. 2d 294 (1961). In that case the IRS had filed a notice of tax lien in the United States District Court for the District of Michigan in which certain real property was located. The IRS had refused to file the notice with the local register of deeds because Michigan law required a description of the land upon which the lien was claimed, and the form of notice used by the IRS did not include such a description. Since Michigan required such a description, the IRS concluded that Michigan had not "authorized" filing of the notice within the meaning of § 3672 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, the predecessor to § 6323, and that the notices should, therefore, properly be filed in the United States District Court. The Supreme Court agreed with the IRS, holding that the State of Michigan could not place obstacles to the enforcement of federal tax liens not clearly permitted by Congress, and in attempting to do so, had not "authorized" a place for filing within the meaning of § 3672. In so holding, the court stated
* * * the subject of federal taxes, including 'remedies for their collection, has always been conceded to be independent of the legislative action of the states.' United States v. Snyder, 149 U.S. 210, 214 (13 S. Ct. 846, 847, 37 L. Ed. 705, 706). 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.
Id. at 293-94, 82 S. Ct. at 351, 7 L. Ed. 2d at 296 (emphasis added). See also United States v. Estate of Donnelly, 397 U.S. 286, 90 S. Ct. 1033, 25 L. Ed. 2d 312 (1970).