Opinion ID: 728862
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Writ of entry

Text: 4 If a taxpayer fails to meet his tax liabilities, the IRS can impose a lien on the taxpayer's property and, pursuant to I.R.C. § 6331, seize the property to satisfy the tax debt. If the property to be seized is located on private property, upon probable cause a district court can issue a writ of entry authorizing the IRS to enter the property so that the IRS may enforce its levy. See I.R.C. § 7402(a); United States v. First National City Bank, 568 F.2d 853, 855-56 (2d Cir.1977). 5 The Coppolas first contend that the IRS did not follow the required statutory procedures for enforcing a levy. Because taxpayers made no argument in the District Court that the procedures followed by the IRS in enforcing the levy were defective, they cannot raise this issue on appeal. In any event, even though the record below was not fully developed because taxpayers never raised this issue, the record as it stands supports the Government's position that all required statutory procedures were followed. 6 Second, the Coppolas object to the validity of the writ because it was issued ex parte. The law clearly establishes that in tax collection cases, the IRS can obtain writs of entry ex parte. See I.R.C. § 7402(a); First National, 568 F.2d at 856. United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 114 S.Ct. 492 (1993), a civil forfeiture case relied on by appellants, is inapposite. In fact, the Court in Good expressly distinguished summary tax collection procedures from civil forfeiture cases, and indicated that it was not revisiting cases decided over a century ago [that] permitted the ex parte seizure of real property when the Government was collecting debts or revenue. Good, 114 S.Ct. at 504. 7 Third, taxpayers complain that they were not afforded a prompt post-seizure hearing. Taxpayers should have brought a separate action seeking injunctive relief. See First National, 568 F.2d at 856; see also Commissioner v. Shapiro, 424 U.S. 614 (1976). Regardless, in the Government-initiated case, taxpayers were given a hearing as soon as they asked for one. At the hearing the District Court enjoined the sale of the seized property, and the injunction stayed in effect until the District Court's final order was issued in January 1995. 8 Fourth, the Coppolas argue that the writ was defective because it did not disclose the fact that other lienholders had liens on the property the Government sought to seize. The Government is not required to determine all claimant's rights to property prior to levying upon the property. See United States v. National Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. 713, 721 (1985); cf. I.R.C. § 7426 (setting forth the remedies available to a person who claims an interest in property subject to a Government levy). The validity and extent of other liens is left for post-collection determination. See National Bank, 472 U.S. at 721.