Court Opinion

ID: 9561198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:05:01.273033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:41.225670
License: Public Domain

Fletcher, Presiding Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the court’s judgment. I also note that there is an additional reason that the trial court must be affirmed. Brissey seeks to have the federal tax liens cancelled because they are not in compliance with OCGA § 44-14-572, which states that a “certification by the secretary of the treasury of the United States or his delegate” entitles federal tax liens to be filed. The eligibility for filing of a federal tax lien, however, is controlled by federal law5 and the states are not permitted to add to the federal requirements.6 In United States v. Union Central Life Insurance Company,7 the United States Supreme Court held that states cannot impose additional requirements on the filing of federal tax liens. Similarly, other courts have addressed state statutes virtually identical to OCGA § 44-14-572 and concluded that the state-imposed requirement is invalid.8 Therefore, the failure of the tax liens to meet an additional certification requirement imposed by state law provides no basis for the cancellation of the liens. Because Brissey’s petition fails to state a basis for relief, the trial court properly dismissed it.
I am authorized to state that Justice Carley joins in this concurrence.
*41Harry D. Dixon, U. S. Attorney, Melissa S. Mundell, Assistant U. S. Attorney, W. Gary Moore, Brian P. Kaufman, Charles F. Marshall, for appellees.

 26 U.S.C. § 6323 ffl.

 26 U.S.C. § 6323 (0 (3).

 368 U.S. 291 (82 SC 349, 7 LE2d 294) (1961).

 Krueger v. Kennedy, No. 2:96-CV-109 (1998 WL 641985) (W.D. Mich. 1998); Cleveland v. United States, No. CV94-157-BLG-JDS (1995 WL 710780) (D. Mont. 1995).