Opinion ID: 814753
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Group’s Claims Regarding the Levies

Text: The Group next claims that the levies against Pfizer and DuPuy were improper. The IRS may levy a delinquent taxpayer’s property. I.R.C. § 6331. But the IRS may only levy “property possessed” by the taxpayer or existing obligations, which exist “when the liability of the obligor is fixed and determinable although the right to receive payment thereof may be deferred until a later date.” I.R.C. § 6331(b); Treas. Reg. § 301.6331-1(a)(1). The Group No. 09-3380 11 argues that these obligations were advances, and therefore that the Group’s right to them was not “fixed and determinable.” See Treas. Reg. § 301.6331-1(a)(1). Accordingly, the Group claims that the accounts could not be levied by the IRS. However, these arguments are unavailing because they too do not allege any economic harm and therefore the group lacks standing. Under the Group’s theory, the DePuy and Pfizer accounts were not yet owed to it. Accordingly, Depuy and Pfizer—not the Group—would have suffered economic harm as a result of the allegedly improper levy. In fact, assuming arguendo that the leviedupon funds still belonged to DePuy and Pfizer, the Group would have realized a windfall in having Depuy and Pfizer’s property applied to its own liabilities. See Allied/Royal Parking, 166 F.3d at 1004-05; Maisano v. Welcher, 940 F.2d 499, 501 (9th Cir. 1991) (“If the [property] belongs to the [third party], the [taxpayers] have no standing to sue and their case must be dismissed.”). In addition, Congress provides a remedy for third parties to collect wrongfully levied property but expressly forbids the taxpayer against whom the IRS is seeking to collect the taxes from doing so. I.R.C. § 7426(a) permits “any person (other than the person against whom is assessed the tax out of which such levy arose)” whose property has been levied or sold pursuant to a levy, to sue to recover the property. The Group is “the person [that was] assessed the tax out of which such levy arose.” Thus, the government did not waive sovereign immunity to challenge the levies. 12 No. 09-3380