Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 149 BR 450 - In Re Hawn

In Re Hawn’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
September 1998
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 6323 · 26 U.S.C. § 6331 · 26 U.S.C. § 6332

Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · United States v. City of New Britain · Aquilino v. United States · United States v. Pioneer American Insurance · Stephens County v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Under Section 6331(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS is authorized to levy upon all property and rights to property (except property exempt by statute) belonging to a delinquent taxpayer.... An IRS levy, ... reaches only property which exists on the date of the levy. Thus, the Treasury Regulations provide that, except with respect to levies on salary or wages (as to which the Internal Revenue Code specifically authorizes a continuing-levy), “[a] levy extends only to property possessed or obligations which exist at the time of the levy.” Reg. § 301.6331(a)(1), emphasis added. Under the Regulations, an IRS levy also will reach a vested, accrued right to receive money in the future. The Regulations then provide that an IRS levy will reach property “when the liability of the obligor is fixed and determinable although the right to receive payment thereof may be deferred until a later date.” Id.... This would cover, for example, a note providing for specific payments on fixed future dates. In contrast, an IRS levy will not reach a taxpayer’s claim to receive payments in the future where the taxpayer does not, at the time of the levy, have a fixed and determinable right to those payments. For example, the IRS has ruled that a levy will not reach unvested, contingent rights to future payments. See Rev.Rul. 75-554, 1975 C.B. 478 .... Similarly, the example in the Regulations stating that an IRS levy will reach future payments due under completed sales of personal property impli”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.