Court Opinion

ID: 9460943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:03:01.737713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:50.144675
License: Public Domain

ROSS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in Judge Gibson’s opinion and agree with his explication of the law on the narrow issue before us. I do so reluctantly, because I think the result reached is not a satisfactory one for either the United States, the taxpayer, or the appellant. The United States may now pi’oeeed to sell the subject real estate but must advise any and all prospective purchasers of the claim of the appellant under the homestead laws of Arkansas. At best the purchaser of the property is buying a lawsuit with the appellant and the sales price will likely be diminished by the uncertainty of the title. This diminished sales price is bad *1224for both the United States, and for the taxpayer.
I fail to understand why the United States in this situation insisted upon a nonjudieial sale with all its attendant problems when it could have followed the procedure set forth in 26 U.S.C. § 7402 and § 7403 and foreclosed the lien in a federal court action thereby determining the interest of all parties in and to the property and delivering clear title to the purchaser. One is left with the suspicion that the government officials involved were more interested in an immediate sale than in the amount realized therefrom and that they were not particularly concerned with the rights of third parties.