LAW.coLAW.co

UNITED STATES of America, Internal Revenue Service, Appellant, v. BARLOWS, INC., Appellee. In re BARLOWS INCORPORATED, Debtor

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit1985-07-22No. No. 84-1982
767 F.2d 1098

Summary

Holding. The court affirmed the requirement that the IRS credit Barlows' full tax liability with the entire amount of the seized account receivable rather than only the partial payments collected, based on the IRS's failure to conduct a statutory sale and its assumption of complete control over the asset.

Barlows, Inc., a construction firm, owed substantial federal withholding and FICA taxes. The IRS seized an account receivable owed to Barlows by a third party (Western Development Corporation) valued at approximately $102,544. Rather than conducting a public sale of the seized property as required by tax law, the IRS negotiated a payment agreement directly with Western, which paid only $27,000 before defaulting. The IRS credited only the $27,000 against Barlows' tax debt. When Barlows filed for bankruptcy protection, it objected to the IRS's claim, arguing the full value of the account receivable should be credited.

The bankruptcy court ordered the IRS to credit the entire account receivable amount against Barlows' tax liability. The court reasoned that by failing to conduct a statutory sale and by taking complete control of the account, the IRS had prevented Barlows from satisfying its tax obligation through that asset. The district court affirmed, finding that without Barlows' consent to the payment agreement and given the IRS's assumption of complete dominion over the receivable, Barlows could not be held responsible for Western's failure to pay.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether the IRS must conduct a public sale of seized property under IRC § 6335
  • Whether the IRS may establish market value through alternative means to limit its credit obligation
  • Whether a taxpayer may be held liable for a third party's default when the IRS negotiates collection directly without the taxpayer's consent

Procedural posture

The IRS appealed from the district court's affirmance of a bankruptcy court order requiring the IRS to credit Barlows with the full value of a seized account receivable.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Internal Revenue Service (Service) appeals from the decision of the district court affirming an order of the bankruptcy court requiring the Service to grant a credit against the tax liability owed by Barlows, Inc., in the amount of the balance due on an account receivable owned by Barlows that the Service had seized by levy. We affirm.

Barlows is a residential and commercial remodeling and construction firm. In June and July of 1982, the Service made assessments totalling $335,875.87 against Bar-lows for unpaid withholding and Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) taxes for the first and second quarters of 1982. The Service filed notices of federal tax lien regarding these assessments in July and August of 1982.

By August 16, 1982, Barlows had a fully-earned account receivable due from Western Development Corporation in the amount of $102,544.89. It notified the Service of the existence of this account receivable and, on August 16, 1982, the Service served a notice of levy on Western and caused notice of seizure of the account receivable to be served on Barlows. Thereafter, without the participation or knowledge of Barlows, the Service and Western entered into a payment agreement pursuant to which Western agreed to honor the levy by making a series of payments to the Service. After paying $27,000, however, Western defaulted. The Service credited the $27,000 against Barlows’ tax liability but did not bring suit against Western to enforce the payment agreement.

Barlow filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, 11 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1174 (1982 & Supp. II 1984) on November 30, 1982. The Service filed a proof of claim in the amount of $361,147.79, representing the assessed taxes plus interest and penalties less the payments actually made by Western under its agreement with the Service regarding payment of the account receivable. Barlows objected to the claim contending that the Service should be required to credit the full amount of the account receivable, $102,544.85, against Barlows’ tax liability rather than only the $27,000 actually collected from Western.

The parties stipulated to the facts and submitted the matter to the bankruptcy judge for adjudication on the briefs and stipulation. The bankruptcy judge, in a memorandum opinion and order issued on February 8, 1984, 36 BR 826 (Bankr.E.D. Va.), ordered that the Service credit Bar-lows’ tax liability for the full amount of the Western account receivable, reasoning that by failing to conduct a sale of the property pursuant to I.R.C. § 6335 (1982) and by exercising complete dominion and control over the account, the Service had precluded Barlows from partially satisfying its tax liability by pursuing the Western account receivable. The district court affirmed the order of the bankruptcy court concluding that, absent consent by Barlows to the payment agreement and in light of the Service assuming complete dominion over the account receivable, the Service could not hold Barlows accountable for Western’s default. The Service appeals.

The Service contends on appeal, as it did below, that IRC § 6335 does not require that it conduct a sale of all property after service of a notice of levy upon a third party, but rather serves as an alternative means by which the Service may collect unpaid taxes. The Service also argues that the district court erred in concluding that because it failed to establish a market price for the account receivable by conducting a sale, the Service was obligated to credit Barlows with the face amount of the account receivable.

Finding no error in the district court’s thorough opinion based on these unique facts, we affirm on the basis of its opinion.

AFFIRMED.

. The bankruptcy judge also ordered that the Service grant a credit in favor of Barlows for interest charged after August 16, 1982 on the amount represented by the amount of the account receivable,