Opinion ID: 585745
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Summary Judgment for the Government

Text: 5 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Maisano v. Welcher, 940 F.2d 499, 500 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied sub nom Maisano v. I.R.S., 112 S.Ct. 1957 (1992). Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. (citations omitted); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). 6 Washington argues the seizure of the Cadillac from her driveway without a warrant violated her fourth amendment rights. We reject this argument. Without evidence of special features of the driveway (i.e. barriers, lack of visibility from the street) or activities performed upon it to support a reasonable expectation of privacy, a warrantless seizure of an automobile from a taxpayer's driveway pursuant to a tax levy does not violate the fourth amendment. Maisano, 940 F.2d at 502-03. 7 The plaintiffs contend Munson's prior lien on the Cadillac exceeded its value and made the levy uneconomical under 26 U.S.C. § 6331(f). 2 They assert the word property in section 6331(f) means the taxpayer's net equity in the property. We disagree. Section 6331 authorizes the government to levy upon all property and rights to property belonging to a delinquent taxpayer. 26 U.S.C. § 6331(a). Holding that property extends only to the taxpayer's net equity would require the government to determine the rights of third-party claimants before making a levy. There is no such requirement. See United States v. National Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. 713, 721, 729 (1985); United States v. Badger, 930 F.2d 754, 757 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Bell Credit Union, 860 F.2d 365, 368 (10th Cir.1988). [Section] 6331 is a provisional remedy, which does not determine the rights of third parties until after the levy is made, in postseizure administrative or judicial hearings. National Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. at 731 (emphasis in original). 8 The plaintiffs also contend the alleged violation of section 6331(f) constituted a further violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7433. 3 We reject this argument. There was no violation of section 6331(f).