Court Opinion

ID: 9393883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 16:00:45.235376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:55.953151
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAY 11 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIE DINWIDDIE,                                No.   21-35368

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00197-SEH

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Internal
Revenue Service,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Idaho
                    Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 9, 2023**
                               Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

      Julie Dinwiddie appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment in this

wrongful levy action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo, Opara v. Yellen, 57 F.4th 709, 721 (9th Cir. 2023), and affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Contrary to Julie’s contentions, the United States Internal Revenue Service

(“IRS”) permissibly levied her personal bank accounts to collect money she had

transferred to herself by virtue of her ownership of all stock in the company

Evergreen Nursery Incorporated (“ENI”). The IRS assessed approximately $3.7

million in tax liabilities against Julie’s husband, Jeffrey Dinwiddie in 2007, at which

point a lien in favor of the United States attached to Jeffrey’s property. See 26 U.S.C.

§ 6321. At that time, Jeffrey was the sole stockholder of ENI. Because a tax lien

broadly reaches “every interest in property that a taxpayer might have,” the lien

reached Jeffrey’s stock and any right to monetary distributions associated with that

stock ownership. See United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274, 283, 286 (2002) (citation

omitted). Prior to the time Jeffrey transferred his ENI stock to Julie, the IRS had

recorded its lien in compliance with Alaskan law. See 26 U.S.C. § 6323(f)(1)(A)(ii);

Alaska Stat. § 40.19.020(c). Consequently, Julie received the stock subject to lien

regardless of whether she qualifies as a purchaser of the stock. See 26 U.S.C. §

6323(a); United States v. Bess, 357 U.S. 51, 57 (1958).

      Although the IRS discharged its lien against ENI’s sole asset—real property

known as the Old Seward Property—under 26 U.S.C. § 6325(b)(2)(B) in 2008, the

IRS made clear that the lien remained on all of Jeffrey’s other property, including

the ENI stock. The money at issue here consists of funds that Julie distributed from

ENI’s account to her personal bank account pursuant to her authority and rights as

                                           2
the sole stockholder of the business. Because the ENI stock was subject to the

federal tax lien at all relevant times, the levy was permissible.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           3