Court Opinion

ID: 9429211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:26:00.399828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:17.881513
License: Public Domain

Justice Blackmun,
with whom Justice Rehnquist, Justice Stevens, and Justice O’Connor join, concurring in the result in part and dissenting in part.
The Court today properly rejects the broad legal principle concerning 26 U. S. C. §7403 that was announced by the Court of Appeals. See ante, at 687-688 and 690-691. I agree that, in some situations, §7403 gives the Government the power to sell property not belonging to the taxpayer. Our task, however, is to ascertain how far Congress intended that power to extend. In my view, § 7403 confers on the Government the power to sell or force the sale of jointly owned property only insofar as the tax debtor’s interest in that property would permit him to do so; it does not confer on the Government the power to sell jointly owned property if an unindebted co-owner enjoys an indestructible right to bar a sale and to continue in possession. Because Mrs. Rodgers had such a right, and because she is not herself indebted to the Government, I dissent from the Court’s disposition of her case.
I — I
It is basic m the common law that a lienholder enjoys rights in property no greater than those of the debtor himself; that is, the lienholder does no móre than step into the debtor’s shoes. 1 L. Jones, Law of Liens § 9, pp. 9-10 (1914). Thus, as a general rule, “[t]he lien of a judgment . . . cannot be made effectual to bind or to convey any greater or other estate than the debtor himself, in the exercise of his rights, could voluntarily have transferred or alienated.” 49 C. J. S., Judgments §478 (1947) (collecting cases); Commercial Credit Co. v. Davidson, 112 F. 2d 54, 57 (CA5 1940); Wiltshire v. Warburton, 59 F. 2d 611, 614 (CA4 1932). Similarly, pursuant to a state tax lien, “no greater interest in land than that *714which was held by the taxpayer and taxable to him may be sold, so that, where a sale is had for unpaid taxes on a leasehold estate, only the leasehold estate is subject to conveyance.”1 85 C. J. S., Taxation §806 (1954) (footnote omitted) (collecting cases); United States v. Erie County, 31 F. Supp. 57, 60 (WDNY 1939). The lienholder may compel the debtor to exercise his property rights in order to meet his obligations or the lienholder may exercise those rights for him. But the debtor’s default does not vest in the lienholder rights that were not available to the debtor himself.
In most situations in which a delinquent taxpayer shares property with an unindebted third party, it does no violence to this principle to order a sale of the entire property so long as the third party is fully compensated. A joint owner usually has at his disposal the power to convey the property or force its conveyance. Thus, for example, a joint tenant or tenant in common may seek partition. See generally W. Plumb, Federal Tax Liens 35 (3d ed. 1972). If a joint tenant is delinquent in his taxes, the United States does no more than step into the delinquent taxpayer’s shoes when it compels a sale.2
*715In a small number of joint-ownership situations, however, the delinquent taxpayer has no right to force partition or otherwise to alienate the entire property without the consent of the co-owner. These include tenancies by the entirety and certain homestead estates. See Plumb, Federal Liens and Priorities — Agenda for the Next Decade II, 77 Yale L. J. 605, 634 (1968). In this case, the homestead estate owned by the delinquent taxpayer — Mrs. Rodgers’ deceased husband— did not include the right to sell or force the sale of the homestead during Mrs. Rodgers’ lifetime without her consent. Mrs. Rodgers had, and still has, an indefeasible right to possession, an interest, as the Court recognizes, “akin to an undivided life estate.” Ante, at 686. A lienholder stepping into the shoes of the delinquent taxpayer would not be able to force a sale.
II
By holding that the District Court has the discretion to order a sale of Mrs. Rodgers’ property, the Court necessarily finds in the general language of § 7403 a congressional intent to abrogate the rule that the tax collector’s lien does not afford him rights in property in excess of the rights of the delinquent taxpayer.3 I do not dispute that the general *716language of § 7403, standing alone, is subject to the interpretation the Court gives it. From its enactment in 18684 to the present day, the language of this statute has been sweeping; read literally, it admits of no exceptions. But when broadly worded statutes, particularly those of some antiquity, are in derogation of common-law principles, this Court has hesitated to heed arguments that they should be applied literally. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 417 (1976). In such cases, the Court has presumed in the absence of a clear indication to the contrary that Congress did not mean by its use of general language to contravene fundamental precepts of the common law.5
*717A
Apart from the general language of the statute, the Court points to nothing indicating a congressional intent to abrogate the traditional rule. It seems to me, indeed, that the evidence definitely points the other way. Scholarly comment on § 7403, and on § 6321, the tax lien provision, consistently has maintained that, in States such as Texas that confer on each spouse absolute rights to full use and possession of the homestead for life, the homestead property rights of an unindebted spouse may not be sold by the tax collector to satisfy the other spouse’s tax debt.6 Court decisions address*718ing this point have been to the same effect.7 In 1966, the American Bar Association placed before Congress this virtually undisputed view of the law of federal tax liens. Legislative History 177.8 Since 1936, Congress repeatedly has ad*719dressed the law of federal tax liens, directing some attention to § 7403.9 Against the background of this consensus among courts and commentators that tax liens may not be enforced against such homesteads so long as an unindebted spouse still lives, Congress did not change the law.
In fact, in 1954 the Senate foiled an attempt by the House to extend the reach of federal tax liens to tenancies by the entirety, a spousal property interest similar to the Texas homestead.10 The rule pronounced in the courts, e. g., United States v. Hutcherson, 188 F. 2d 326, 331 (CA8 1951); United States v. Nathanson, 60 F. Supp. 193, 194 (ED Mich. 1945), and the view of the commentators, e. g., Anderson, supra n. 3, at 254; Clark, supra n. 3, at 17, was that tenancies by the entirety, like Texas homesteads, could not be sold to enforce the tax liability of one spouse. The House passed *720an amendment that would have extended the tax lien created by § 6321 expressly to the taxpayer’s interest as tenant by the entirety. H. R. 8300, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., §6321 (1954) (Code bill). The Senate removed the language, stating: “The deletion of the phrase is intended to continue the existing law.” S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 575 (1954).
It is true, of course, that tenancies by the entirety were held to be immune from federal tax sales on a theory different from that applied to homestead property like Mrs. Rodgers’. See ante, at 703-704, n. 31. But it was established that both types of property interests precluded the Government from satisfying the tax debts of one spouse by selling the jointly owned property. In the absence of any evidence of congressional intent to the contrary, this deliberate choice to leave undisturbed the bar to tax enforcement created by a tenancy by the entirety11 suggests that Congress did not object to the similar effect of the Texas homestead right, an effect consistent with principles basic to the common law of liens.
*721B
Although disclaiming it as a basis for decision, the Court relies on Mansfield v. Excelsior Refining Co., 135 U. S. 326, 339-341 (1890), to support its reading of §7403. Ante, at 691-692, n. 17. In Mansfield, a tenant who operated a distillery on leased property fell delinquent in its taxes. The Government sought to sell by administrative levy the entire fee, not just the tenant’s leasehold interest. The fee was owned by a third party, and the delinquent taxpayer’s leasehold interest obviously did not give him the power to sell the fee. The Mansfield Court would not allow a sale by administrative levy, but suggested that on the facts of that case, the Government could seek a judicial sale of the entire property under the predecessor of § 7403. Focusing on just this portion of the Mansfield opinion, the Court now states that “[r]ead broadly, Mansfield is on ‘all fours’ with our holding today.” Ante, at 692, n. 17.
To the contrary, Mansfield is not on “all fours” with today’s holding, and indeed undermines it. In the same 1868 Act in which it passed the original predecessor to §7403, Congress enacted a separate provision to ensure the collection of taxes from distillers. Section 8 of that Act required each distiller to own its distillery property in fee and free from liens. Alternatively, a distiller could file with the tax collector the fee owner’s written consent granting a tax lien of the United States priority over all other claims to the property, and granting the United States full title in the property in case of forfeiture. Act of July 20, 1868, ch. 186, § 8, 15 Stat. 128.
The taxpayer’s landlord in Mansfield had executed such a waiver, and the Court stated that “the vital question” was the waiver’s effect. 135 U. S., at 338. Rejecting the Government’s position, the Court held that the waiver did not permit sale of the property by administrative levy. The Court made clear, however, that its reading of the statute did *722not render the waiver requirement useless. “By the waiver the government. . . acquired the right, by a suit [under the predecessor of §7403], to have sold, under the decree of a court, not only the distiller’s leasehold interest, but the fee in the premises.” Id,., at 340.
Thus, the Mansfield Court considered the waiver to be a condition precedent to the Government’s power, under the predecessor of § 7403, to sell the landlord’s fee interest when the tenant was in default in its taxes. If §7403 gives the Government this power without the necessity of a waiver— as the Court today holds — it seems unlikely that Congress would have considered it necessary, in the very Act in which it passed §7403’s predecessor, to require that a distiller either own the fee outright or obtain from its landlord advance authorization for a sale of the fee to satisfy the distiller’s tax liabilities.12 Outside the distillery context, Congress must have intended that the Government’s power to force a sale of the fee would be no more extensive than that of the delinquent taxpayer.
*723c
The Court’s “broad reading” of Mansfield’s holding reflects only the extraordinary breadth of its own. As read by the Court, Mansfield authorizes, without the consent of the owner of the fee, a judicial sale of a building should a tenant fail to pay his taxes, a judicial sale of a farm should the holder of an easement across it become delinquent,13 or a judicial sale of a condominium or cooperative apartment house to satisfy the tax debt of any co-owner.14 The Court imputes to Congress an intent to permit the sale of the farm or the building even though the fee owners have paid their taxes and even though, in signing a lease or conveying an easement, the fee owners did not surrender their indefeasible right to prevent the sale of their property.
Prior to 1936, moreover, the predecessor of § 7403(c) required a court at the Government’s request to sell the prop*724erty in which the tax debtor had an interest. See ante, at 706-709. Thus, the Court’s view attributes to Congress the incredible intention to mandate the sale of the entire property whenever the holder of an easement, a tenant, or one with a similarly minimal interest fails to pay a tax and the Government invokes its right to bring an action to enforce its lien. It is hardly surprising that counsel for the Government has been unable to cite a single instance before or after this Court’s decision in Mansfield in which the Government, outside the context of the homestead cases, invoked § 7403 or its predecessors to assert a property right greater than the taxpayer himself could have asserted. Tr. of Oral Arg. 14-16. To abrogate the common-law rule that the tax collector gains only the property rights of the tax debtor leads to absurd results.
III
Without direct evidence of congressional intent to contravene the traditional — and sensible — common-law rule, the Court advances three arguments purporting to lend indirect support for its construction of § 7403.
A
First, the Court claims that its construction is consistent with the policy favoring “the prompt and certain collection of delinquent taxes.” Ante, at 694. This rationale would support any exercise of governmental power to secure tax payments. Were there two equally plausible suppositions of congressional intent, this policy might counsel in favor of choosing the construction more favorable to the Government. But when one interpretation contravenes both traditional rules of law and the common sense and common values on which they are built, the fact that it favors the Government’s interests cannot be dispositive.15
*725Moreover, the Government’s interest would not be compromised substantially by a rule permitting it to sell property only when the delinquent taxpayer could have done so. In this case, the delinquent taxpayer’s homestead interest, it is assumed, gave him a “half-interest in the underlying ownership rights to the property being sold.” Ante, at 699. An immediate forced sale of the entire property would yield for the Government no more than half the present value of the remainder interest, the residue left after the present values of the nondelinquent spouse’s life estate and half-interest in the remainder are subtracted. As the Court notes, the Government can expect to receive only a small fraction of the proceeds. Ibid. An immediate sale of the delinquent taxpayer’s future interest in the property might well command a commensurate price.
Alternatively, the Government could maintain its lien on the property until Mrs. Rodgers dies and then could force a sale. Because the delinquent taxpayer’s estate retains a half-interest in the remainder, the Government would be entitled to half of the proceeds at that time. The Government’s yield from this future sale, discounted to its present value, should not differ significantly from its yield under the Court’s approach. The principal difference is that, following the common-law rule, Mrs. Rodgers’ entitlement to live out her life on her homestead would be respected.
An approach consistent with the common law need not prejudice the Government’s interest in the “certain” collection of taxes. Under § 7403(d),16 the District Court has the power to appoint a receiver, who could supervise the property to protect the Government’s interests while respecting Mrs. Rodgers’ rights to possession and enjoyment. Plumb, *72677 Yale L. J., at 638. Indeed, just such an approach was suggested by the American Bar Association’s Committee on Federal Liens, 84 A. B. A. Rep. 645, 681-682 (1959), which drafted the tax lien amendments adopted in 1966. Legislative History 108-109 (statement of Laurens Williams).
B
The Court also would support its construction by contrasting § 7403 with the more restrictive language of § 6331, the administrative tax levy provision. Ante, at 695-697. It is true that § 6331 permits the sale only of “property and rights to property . . . belonging to” the taxpayer, while § 7403 generally authorizes the sale of property in which the taxpayer has an interest. But the greater power conferred by § 7403 is needed to enable the Government to seek the sale of jointly owned property whenever the tax debtor’s rights in the property would have permitted him to seek a forced sale. Section 7403 certainly permits the Government, in such circumstances, to seek partition of the property in federal, rather than state, court, to seek authority to sell the tax debtor’s part or the whole, and, in the same proceeding, to have determined the entitlements of the various claimants, including competing lienholders, to the proceeds of the property sold. See generally Plumb, 77 Yale L. J., at 628-629. Absent the more expansive language of §7403, this would not be possible. That language, however, does not manifest congressional intent to produce the extraordinary consequences yielded by the Court’s interpretation.
C
The Court also asserts that its construction of § 7403 is consistent with “the traditional powers of a taxing authority in an in rem enforcement proceeding,” even if it is not consistent with the traditional rights of lienholders. Ante, at 694-695 and 702. This, with all respect, is not so. In rem tax enforcement proceedings never have been used to sell property *727belonging to unindebted third parties in order to satisfy a tax delinquency unrelated to the property sold. As the Court recognizes, ante, at 694, such proceedings are brought to sell land in order to satisfy delinquent ad valorem taxes assessed on the land itself. 2 T. Cooley, Law of Taxation 866, 910 (3d ed. 1903). It is said that the land itself is liable for such taxes, and that conflicting ownership rights thus do not bar its sale. See id., at 866-868; H. Black, Law of Tax Titles 296 (1888); W. Burroughs, Law of Taxation 346-349 (1877). The cases relied upon by the Court for the proposition that in rem tax proceedings extinguish the homestead rights of an un-indebted spouse merely applied this rule. Lucas v. Purdy, 142 Iowa 359, 120 N. W. 1063 (1909); Robbins v. Barron, 32 Mich. 36 (1875); Jones v. Devore, 8 Ohio St. 430 (1858).
On the other hand, if the tax is assessed on an individual’s separate interest in the land, rather than on the land itself, the tax debt is personal to the individual and “[njothing more [than the individual’s interest] . . . can become delinquent; nothing more can be sold.” Black, supra, at 301; see R. Blackwell, On the Power to Sell Land 908, 920, 942 (5th ed. 1889); 2 Cooley, supra, at 870-871; Burroughs, supra, at 347. The real property interests of third parties cannot be sold through an in rem proceeding to satisfy a personal tax liability. The “traditional powers of a taxing authority” to sell the entire property and extinguish the interests of un-indebted third parties thus are limited to collection of taxes assessed on the land itself, and have no application to delinquent taxes, like those at issue in these cases, assessed personally against one joint owner.17
*728Some States, it is true, have authorized by statute the sale of real property to satisfy the owner’s tax debts, even where the delinquent taxes are unrelated to the property. See Larimer County v. National State Bank of Boulder, 11 Colo. 564 (1888); Iowa Land Co. v. Douglas County, 8 S. D. 491 (1896). The Court does not suggest, however, that jointly owned real property ever has been sold pursuant to such a statute when an unindebted co-owner has indefeasible rights therein. Indeed, the traditional distinction between taxes for which the land is liable and tax liabilities personal to the taxpayer would preclude such a sale. Thus, even if one purpose of §7403’s predecessor statute “was to obtain for the federal tax collector some of the advantages that many States enjoyed through in rem tax enforcement,” ante, at 695, Congress would not have intended the result the Court reaches today. A state tax collector could not confiscate the indefeasible real property interests of a nondelinquent third party to satisfy the personal tax liability of a co-owner.18
*729> hH
The Court recognizes that Mrs. Rodgers has an indestructible property right under Texas law to use, possess, and enjoy her homestead during her lifetime, and that the delinquent taxpayer’s property interests would not have enabled him to disturb that right against her will. Ante, at 685-686. The Court recognizes that Mrs. Rodgers has no outstanding tax liability and that the Government has no lien on Mrs. Rodgers’ property or property rights. Because I conclude that Congress did not intend § 7403 to permit federal courts to grant property rights to the Government greater than those enjoyed by the tax debtor, I would hold that the Government may not sell Mrs. Rodgers’ homestead without her consent. To the extent the Court holds to the contrary, I respectfully dissent.
V
Mrs. Ingram’s case, however, is materially different. Like her husband, Mrs. Ingram was liable for back taxes, and consequently the Government had a lien on her interests in property as well as on her husband’s interests. Exercising both spouses’ rights in the homestead, the Government is en*730titled to force a sale, Plumb, 13 Tax L. Rev., at 263; see Shambaugh v. Scofield, 132 F. 2d 345 (CA5 1942), subject only to the discretion of the District Court. See ante, at 703-711. Second, when Mrs. Ingram and her former husband were divorced, the homestead became subject to partition under Texas law. See ante, at 685, n. 10. In Mrs. Ingram’s case, therefore, I concur in the result.

 See infra, at 726-728.

“ Every jurisdiction'permits partition by sale in a proper case.” 4A R. Powell, Real Property ¶ 613, p. 656 (1982). The same treatise observes: “Lip service is still given to the historical preference for physical division of the affected land, but sale normally is the product of a partition proceeding, either because the parties all wish it or because courts are easily convinced that sale is necessary for the fair treatment of the parties.” ¶ 612, p. 652. The Government views application of § 7403 as constrained by like principles. Tr. of Oral Arg. 7; see id., at 13; n. 14, infra.
Thus, stepping into the shoes of the tenant in common or joint tenant, the Government may force a sale of the entire property where sale is necessary for fair treatment of the parties or where the parties desire it. For these reasons, I agree with the Court that the Court of Appeals in these cases erred in relying on Folsom v. United States, 306 F. 2d 361 (CA5 1962), which held that the Government cannot seek the sale of jointly owned property, even when the tax debtor’s rights in the property include the right to partition the property or seek a forced sale. See id., at 365.

 In the Court’s words, when the Government exercises its “right to seek a forced sale” under § 7403, ante, at 691, Congress means it to walk not in the tax debtor’s shoes, but in the full panoply of “sovereign prerogative.” Ante, at 697. Yet the Court recognizes that the common-law principle limiting the property rights of the lienholder to those of the debtor long has been assumed in the federal law of tax liens. Ante, at 690-691, and n. 16, quoting 4 B. Bittker, Federal Taxation of Income, Estates, and Gifts ¶ 111.5.4, p. 111-102 (1981) (“the tax collector not only steps into the taxpayer’s shoes but must go barefoot if the shoes wear out”). See Anderson, Federal Tax Liens — Their Nature and Priority, 41 Calif. L. Rev. 241, 250 (1953) (“The rights of the Government to the taxpayer’s property under a tax lien are no greater than the rights of the taxpayer. Or, to put it more simply, the tax collector stands in the shoes of the taxpayer when reaching the taxpayer’s property”); Reid, Tax Liens, Their Operation and Effect, New York University Ninth Annual Institute on Federal Taxation 563, 568 (1951) (“It is clear, of course, that the government’s rights as lienor are no greater than *716the rights of the tax-debtor”); Clark, Federal Tax Liens and Their Enforcement, 33 Va. L. Rev. 13, 17 (1947) (“It is obvious, of course, that the federal tax lien can only reach the property of its tax-debtor and that [the Government’s] rights as lienor to property or rights to property of its tax-debtor can rise no higher than the rights of the latter in that property or rights to property”).

 Much like the current § 7403, the initial version authorized suit by the Commissioner “to enforce the lien of the United States for tax upon any real estate, or to subject any real estate owned by the delinquent, or in which he has any right, title, or interest, to the payment of such tax.” Act of July 20, 1868, ch. 186, § 106, 15 Stat. 125, 167.

 Despite the absolute language of 42 U. S. C. § 1983, the Court has concluded that “§ 1983 is to be read in harmony with general principles of tort immunities and defenses rather than in derogation of them.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 418 (1976). The Court has assumed that “members of the 42d Congress were familiar with common-law principles, including defenses previously recognized in ordinary tort litigation, and that they likely intended these common-law principles to obtain, absent specific provisions to the contrary.” Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U. S. 247, 258 (1981). Pursuant to this approach, the Court has applied various common-law immunities to § 1983 actions. See, e. g., Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U. S. 325 (1983) (witnesses); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731 (1982) (President); Imbler v. Pachtman, supra (state prosecutor); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232 (1974) (state executive officers); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 (1967) (state judge); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367 (1951) (state legislator).
Similarly, in United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310, 322-323 (1892), the Court refused to permit the Government to appeal an adverse judgment in *717a criminal case, despite a statute conferring appellate jurisdiction “[i]n any ease that involves the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States,” Act of Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 517, § 5, 26 Stat. 827, 828. The Court declared: “This statute, like all acts of Congress, and even the Constitution itself, is to be read in the light of the common law,” 144 U. S., at 311, which disfavored such appeals. Before it would conclude that Congress intended to legislate in derogation of a basic common-law rule, the Court required a specific expression of intent.
The concerns underlying the rule that the lienholder gains only the property rights of the debtor are as basic as those underlying the rules in Sanges and the § 1983 immunity cases. The taking of one person’s indefeasible property rights to pay another person’s debts, even with compensation, strikes a discordant note. Cf. Hoeper v. Tax Comm’n, 284 U. S. 206 (1931) (uncompensated taking of wife’s property to pay husband’s tax debt violates Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Fourteenth Amendment); id., at 219 (Holmes, J., dissenting). The question here, as in Sanges and the § 1983 cases, is whether Congress intended this statute to reach that far. It is a well-recognized rule of statutory construction, flowing from a strong policy of respecting traditional property rights, that legislative grants of the takings power may be found in legislation only by express provision or necessary implication. See 3 C. Sands, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 64.06 (4th ed. 1974) (collecting cases); cf. United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332, 336 (1975) (Sanges based on common-law rule of construction requiring explicit legislative authorization for state appeal in criminal case). As shown below, neither may be found in the language, policies, or legislative history of § 7403.

 See W. Plumb, Federal Tax Liens 38 (3d ed. 1972); American Bar Association, Report of the Special Committee on Federal Liens, 84 A. B. A. *718Rep. 645, 682 (1959); Anderson, supra n. 8, at 254; Clark, supra n. 3, at 17; Plumb, Federal Liens and Priorities — Agenda for the Next Decade II, 77 Yale L. J. 605, 634, and n. 194 (1968); Plumb, Federal Tax Collection and Lien Problems, pt. 1, 13 Tax L. Rev. 247, 262-263 (1958); Reid, supra n. 3, at 568. Mr. Plumb’s views may be due particular attention, because he was the principal draftsman of the Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966. See Hearings on H. R. 11256 and H. R. 11290, p. 60, Legislative History of the Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, p. 104 (Committee Print compiled for House Committee on Ways and Means, 1966) (hereinafter Legislative History) (statement of Laurens Williams). The commentators also consistently have observed that state homestead laws that merely exempt homestead property from the reach of creditors, rather than vesting indestructible rights in each spouse, are ineffective against federal tax liens. E. g., Plumb, 77 Yale L. J., at 634. See United States v. Heasley, 283 F. 2d 422, 427 (CA8 1960).

 United States v. Hershberger, 475 F. 2d 677, 682 (CA10 1973); Jones v. Kemp, 144 F. 2d 478, 480 (CA10 1944); Morgan v. Moynahan, 86 F. Supp. 522, 525 (SD Tex. 1949); Bigley v. Jones, 64 F. Supp. 389, 391 (WD Okla. 1946); Paddock v. Siemoneit, 147 Tex. 571, 585, 218 S. W. 2d 428, 436 (1949).

 The Government, in its brief, relies on the American Bar Association’s recommendation to Congress, contained in the Report of the ABA Committee on Federal Liens, that federal tax liens not be made subject to the exemption laws of the States. Brief for United States 30, quoting Final Report of the Committee on Federal Liens (1959), reprinted in Legislative History 75, 175-176. As the Government says, “[t]he committee ... rejected the basic notion as inappropriate, and Congress thereafter refrained from implementing it.” Brief for United States 30.
In light of its reliance on this aspect of the ABA Report, it is strange that the Government did not call to the Court’s attention a passage appearing on the very next page of the ABA Report, under the heading “Homesteads”:
“The homestead exemption laws of the States do not apply as against the federal tax lien. But the homestead laws of some States have been held to create an indivisible and vested interest in the husband and wife, which *719cannot be subjected to levy and sale for the separate tax of one of them.” Legislative History 177 (citations omitted).
The Report cites the leading cases, Jones v. Kemp, supra, and Paddock v. Siemoneit, supra, which held that the Oklahoma and Texas homestead rights block levy on or forced judicial sale of the homestead for the separate tax liability of one spouse. The ABA Report did not advocate changing what it presented as settled law. Instead, it suggested that a court could “declare, but not foreclose, the lien (so that litigable questions may be disposed of within the period of limitations).” Legislative History 177. The Report went on to suggest that a court could “make such order as may be necessary to protect the Government’s interest during the joint lives” of the spouses. Ibid. In the Government’s words, Congress thereafter refrained from implementing any change in the status of Texas homesteads.

 See Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, Pub. L. 89-719, § 107(b), 80 Stat. 1140; Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, §§ 1906(b)(13)(A) and 2004(f)(2), 90 Stat. 1834 and 1872; Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, Pub. L. 97-34, § 422(e)(8), 95 Stat. 316.

 The effect of tenancies by the entirety is to create an immunity from the tax collector far broader than that created by Texas homestead provisions. In addition to homestead property, “[bjusiness assets, personal property, and even money may be so held in some states.” Plumb, 13 Tax L. Rev., at 262.

 The Court implies that the Senate’s stated intention “to continue the existing law” may have indicated a view that existing law permitted sales of a tenancy by the entirety to satisfy a single spouse’s tax debts. Ante, at 703-704, n. 31. This argument is difficult to understand, given the Court’s apparent agreement that judicial interpretation of the tax lien provisions was unequivocally to the contrary. Ante, at 703, n. 31. Moreover, the Senate Report’s suggestion that the amendment might not significantly have changed the law, see ante, at 704, n. 31, does not advance the Court’s case. The amendment would have allowed the federal tax lien merely to attach to the interests in property of the delinquent spouse. Like Texas homestead property, however, a tenancy by the entirety usually vests the entire estate in both spouses, bars either spouse from disposing of it without the concurrence of the other, and prevents either spouse from destroying the other’s survivorship rights. United States v. Hutcherson, 188 F. 2d 326, 329 (CA8 1951). Thus, even if the lien attached to the delinquent spouse’s interest in the property by virtue of the amendment, the traditional rule that the lienholder gains only those property rights possessed by the debtor would have precluded a sale. See generally Plumb, 77 Yale L. J., at 637-638.

 It is the Court that quotes out of context from Mansfield. The waiver provision of the 1868 Act ensured that all distillery property either would be owned in fee by the distiller or would be owned by a third party subject to a waiver of ownership rights in favor of the Government in the event of a default. The “general statement” on which the Court relies, see ante, at 692, n. 17, refers specifically to the application of § 7403’s predecessor to the sale of distillery property: “In order to collect the taxes due from . . . the distiller, [the Government] might have instituted a suit in equity, to which not only the distiller, . . . but all persons . . . claiming any interest in, the premises could be made parties . . . .” 135 U. S., at 339 (emphasis supplied). Even viewed in isolation, this statement need not be read as applying outside the distillery context. On the next page of its opinion, the Mansfield Court resolved whatever doubt might have remained about the breadth of this passage. It stated that the waiver, in addition to giving the Government priority over the owner of the property, gave the Government the right, by a suit in equity, to sell the fee in the premises. Id., at 340.

 At oral argument, the Government admitted that its interpretation of §§ 6321 and 7403 would entitle it to seek the sale of residential property across which a neighbor, delinquent in his taxes, held an easement. Tr. of Oral Arg. 9-10. The Government indicated that it would exercise its discretion to sell just the easement “where there is a separate market” for it. Id,., at 9.

 Even the Internal Revenue Service does not take its approach to the statute this far. The Service has ruled that when a delinquent taxpayer owns a time-sharing condominium interest, “[t]he federal tax lien may be enforced against the delinquent taxpayer’s interest but not against the condominium unit itself.” Rev. Rul. 79-56,1979-1 Cum. Bull. 400, 401. The Service apparently reads its own limitation into the statute’s plain language: sale of property in which a delinquent taxpayer owns a partial interest is permitted only where “the property is not capable of being divided among the co-owners.” Ibid.
Presumably, the Court would agree that it would be an abuse of discretion for a court to order a sale of an entire property capable of division among co-owners. See ante, at 709-711. If the Court is willing to read this limit into the statute, however, I fail to see how the Court can refuse to recognize a limit in the basic common-law proposition that the lienholder obtains no rights that the debtor did not have. See United States v. Hershberger, 475 F. 2d, at 679, 682.

 Similarly important but general policies, coupled with broad statutory language, were insufficient to overcome the common-law rules in both Sanges and the § 1983 cases. See n. 5, supra.

 Section 7403(d) provides:
“In any such proceeding, at the instance of the United States, the court may appoint a receiver to enforce the lien, or, upon certification by the Secretary during the pendency of such proceedings that it is in the public interest, may appoint a receiver with all the powers of a receiver in equity.”

 Congress was fully aware of this distinction in 1868. In 1863, Congress amended a tax statute, explicitly imposing a tax directly on land, and vesting title upon default “in the United States or in the purchasers at [a tax] sale, in fee simple,” free and discharged from “all.. . claim[s] whatsoever.” See Turner v. Smith, 14 Wall. 553, 554-555 (1872) (emphasis deleted). The Court distinguished between this tax, “clearly a direct tax on the land, and on all the estates, interests, and claims connected with or *728growing out of the land,” id., at 563, and the tax authorized by the prior statute, which arguably was imposed merely “on the owner of the land, and levied on the interest of the owner in it.” Id., at 562. The Court held that these amendments made clear that Congress intended to permit the sale of all interests in the property upon default.
Congress did not include similar language in the predecessor statute to § 7403, enacted only five years later, presumably because it was aware that it authorized the sale of land to satisfy personal tax liabilities, rather than to collect direct taxes on the land. As the Mansfield case makes clear, supra, at 721-722, Congress knew how to gain the benefits of in rem proceedings in this context if it so desired: it could obtain a waiver from the owner of the fee, acquiring the right to sell the property regardless of ownership, and permitting a fee simple to vest in the United States, or in a purchaser at a tax sale, upon default.

 The Court also relies on certain cases “outside the context of in rem proceedings” upholding state statutes specifically authorizing enforcement of property taxation through the sale of all personalty in the delinquent taxpayer’s possession, whether or not the taxpayer owns it. Ante, at 695, n. 19. The courts in these cases expressed considerable discomfort with such statutes, but deferred to the legislatures’ explicit intention that owner*729ship was to be presumed from possession. See Sears v. Cottrell, 5 Mich. 251, 254-255 (1858); id., at 257 (concurring opinion). Section 7403, in contrast, is not explicit on the issue before the Court. Moreover, these state statutes hardly could have provided a model for Congress; they did not affect real property, which was the sole subject of the predecessor statute to § 7403. See n. 4, supra. They simply created an irrebuttable presumption that one in possession of personal property was its owner, in order to avoid the fraud and collusion that inevitably would result from a contrary rule. See Hersee v. Porter, 100 N. Y. 403, 409-410, 3 N. E. 338, 339-340 (1885); Sears v. Cottrell, 5 Mich., at 266 (concurring opinion). Real property, which is immovable and subject to stringent recording requirements, does not pose these dangers and thus does not require similar measures.
International Harvester Credit Corp. v. Goodrich, 350 U. S. 537 (1956), relied upon ante, at 695, n. 19, is not relevant. There, the Court merely ratified a State’s choice to give its tax lien priority over competing liens.