Court Opinion

ID: 9420927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:56:21.558859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:27.657875
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Frankfurter,
whom Mr. Justice Reed joins, dissenting.
I cannot agree with the opinion of the Court insofar as it supposes that § 3672 of the Internal Revenue Code is to be read as requiring that certain procedures — -and the same procedures — be complied with in each State before a creditor becomes the magic “judgment creditor.” Section 3672 gives the United States priority over other creditors but not over judgment creditors. This is the rule of uniformity enacted by Congress. But it does not demand that the same procedure be followed in every *367State. Nor does it demand that any particular procedure be followed, that the creditor formally prosecute his claim in the courts and obtain judgment, or even that the common-law requirements be satisfied.
Of course, the State courts cannot by the wand' of a label wave away the requirement, which I agree is a matter for federal interpretation, that a creditor be a “judgment creditor.” But federal law does not insist on anything more than that the creditor be in the same position as a creditor who holds a judgment “in the usual, conventional sense.” Federal law refers to State law, as it does in the closely comparable bankruptcy provisions, to determine whether action taken by a taxing authority of New Hampshire has substantially the same effect as would be given the judgment of a court of record, that is, whether the Town stands — along with creditors who have obtained judgment from a court of record — on a higher footing than those who have yet to establish their claims in court. If the assessment here has, as the New Hampshire Supreme Court informs us, the normal attributes of a judgment, I see no way of escaping the conclusion that the Town is a judgment creditor within the meaning of § 3672. In the light of the New Hampshire decisions, see Nottingham v. Newmarket Mfg. Co., 84 N. H. 419, 151 A. 709; Jaffrey v. Smith, 76 N. H. 168, 80 A. 504; cf. Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Marston, 94 N. H. 375, 376, 54 A. 2d 154, 155, there is no reason for believing that the State ruling here simply applies a label and does not express the controlling law of the State unrelated to the implications of § 3672. Nothing more ought to be required.
In view of the Court's reluctance not only today but for almost a century and a half to decide the issues that may arise under § 3466 of the Revised Statutes, I do not think I ought to embarrass later consideration by the Court of these issues by speaking on them at this time. *368Compare Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 1 Pet. 386, 441, 444, with United States v. Waddill Co., 323 U. S. 353, 355; see 56 Yale L. J. 1258. But cf. Illinois v. Campbell, 329 U. S. 362, 376 (dissenting opinion). It would be particularly inappropriate to do so in this case, because we are not told what kind of lien has arisen and what effect the tax sales may have in the circumstances of this case.