United States v. Craft

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation535 U.S. 274
Docket NumberNo. 00-1831.,00-1831.
PartiesUNITED STATES <I>v.</I> CRAFT.
Decision Date17 April 2002

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

When respondent's husband failed to pay federal income tax liabilities assessed against him, a federal tax lien attached to "all [of his] property and rights to property." 26 U. S. C. § 6321. After the notice of the lien was filed, respondent and her husband jointly executed a quitclaim deed purporting to transfer to her his interest in a piece of real property in Michigan that they owned as tenants by the entirety. Subsequently, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agreed to release the lien and allow respondent to sell the property with half the net proceeds to be held in escrow pending determination of the Government's interest in the property. She brought this action to quiet title to the escrowed proceeds. The Government claimed, among other things, that its lien had attached to the husband's interest in the tenancy by the entirety. The District Court granted the Government summary judgment, but the Sixth Circuit held that no lien attached because the husband had no separate interest in the entireties property under Michigan law, and remanded the case for consideration of an alternative claim not at issue here. In affirming the District Court's decision on remand, the Sixth Circuit held that its prior opinion on the issue whether the lien attached to the husband's entireties property was the law of the case.

Held: The husband's interests in the entireties property constitute "property" or "rights to property" to which a federal tax lien may attach. Pp. 278-289.

(a) Because the federal tax lien statute itself creates no property rights, United States v. Bess, 357 U. S. 51, 55, this Court looks initially to state law to determine what rights the taxpayer has in the property the Government seeks to reach and then to federal law to determine whether such state-delineated rights qualify as property or rights to property under § 6321, Drye v. United States, 528 U. S. 49, 58. A common idiom describes property as a "bundle of sticks" — a collection of individual rights which, in certain combinations, constitute property. State law determines which sticks are in a person's bundle, but federal law determines whether those sticks constitute property for federal tax lien purposes. In looking to state law, this Court must consider the substance of the state law rights, not the labels the State gives them or the conclusions it draws from them. Pp. 278-279.

(b) Michigan law gave respondent's husband, among other rights, the right to use the entireties property, the right to exclude others from it, the right of survivorship, the right to become a tenant in common with equal shares upon divorce, the right to sell the property with respondent's consent and to receive half the proceeds from such a sale, the right to encumber the property with respondent's consent, and the right to block respondent from selling or encumbering the property unilaterally. Pp. 279-282.

(c) The rights Michigan law granted respondent's husband qualify as "property" or "rights to property" under § 6321. The broad statutory language authorizing the tax lien reveals that Congress meant to reach every property interest that a taxpayer might have. United States v. National Bank of Commerce, 472 U. S. 713, 719-720. The husband's rights of use, exclusion, and income alone may be sufficient to subject his entireties interest to the lien, for they gave him a substantial degree of control over the property. See Drye, supra, at 61. He also had the right to alienate the property with respondent's consent. The unilateral alienation stick is not essential to "property." Federal tax liens may attach to property that cannot be unilaterally alienated, United States v. Rodgers, 461 U. S. 677, and excluding such property would exempt a rather large amount of what is commonly thought of as property. A number of the sticks in respondent's husband's bundle were presently existing, so it is not necessary to consider whether his survivorship right alone, which respondent claims is an expectancy, would qualify as property or rights to property. Were this Court to reach a contrary conclusion, the entireties property would belong to no one for § 6321 purposes because respondent had no more interest in the property than her husband. Such a result seems absurd and would allow spouses to shield their property from federal taxation by classifying it as entireties property, facilitating abuse of the federal tax system. Legislative history does not support respondent's position that Congress did not intend that a federal tax lien attach to an entireties property interest. And the common-law background of the tax lien statute's enactment is not enough to overcome the broad language Congress actually used. Pp. 283-288.

(d) That Michigan makes a different choice with respect to state law creditors does not dictate the choice here. Because § 6321's interpretation is a federal question, this Court is in no way bound by state courts' answers to similar questions involving state law. Pp. 288-289.

233 F. 3d 358, reversed and remanded.

O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined, post, p. 289. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS and SCALIA, JJ., joined, post, p. 290.

Kent L. Jones argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General O'Connor, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, David English Carmack, and Joan I. Oppenheimer.

Jeffrey S. Sutton argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were Chad A. Readler, Jeffrey A. Moyer, and Michael Dubetz, Jr.

JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case raises the question whether a tenant by the entirety possesses "property" or "rights to property" to which a federal tax lien may attach. 26 U. S. C. § 6321. Relying on the state law fiction that a tenant by the entirety has no separate interest in entireties property, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that such property is exempt from the tax lien. We conclude that, despite the fiction, each tenant possesses individual rights in the estate sufficient to constitute "property" or "rights to property" for the purposes of the lien, and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I

In 1988, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assessed $482,446 in unpaid income tax liabilities against Don Craft, the husband of respondent Sandra L. Craft, for failure to file federal income tax returns for the years 1979 through 1986. App. to Pet. for Cert. 45a, 72a. When he failed to pay, a federal tax lien attached to "all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to" him. 26 U. S. C. § 6321.

At the time the lien attached, respondent and her husband owned a piece of real property in Grand Rapids, Michigan, as tenants by the entirety. App. to Pet. for Cert. 45a. After notice of the lien was filed, they jointly executed a quitclaim deed purporting to transfer the husband's interest in the property to respondent for one dollar. Ibid. When respondent attempted to sell the property a few years later, a title search revealed the lien. The IRS agreed to release the lien and allow the sale with the stipulation that half of the net proceeds be held in escrow pending determination of the Government's interest in the property. Ibid.

Respondent brought this action to quiet title to the escrowed proceeds. The Government claimed that its lien had attached to the husband's interest in the tenancy by the entirety. It further asserted that the transfer of the property to respondent was invalid as a fraud on creditors. Id., at 46a-47a. The District Court granted the Government's motion for summary judgment, holding that the federal tax lien attached at the moment of the transfer to respondent, which terminated the tenancy by the entirety and entitled the Government to one-half of the value of the property. No. 1:93-CV-306, 1994 WL 669680, *3 (WD Mich., Sept. 12, 1994).

Both parties appealed. The Sixth Circuit held that the tax lien did not attach to the property because under Michigan state law, the husband had no separate interest in property held as a tenant by the entirety. 140 F. 3d 638, 643 (1998). It remanded to the District Court to consider the Government's alternative claim that the conveyance should be set aside as fraudulent. Id., at 644.

On remand, the District Court concluded that where, as here, state law makes property exempt from the claims of creditors, no fraudulent conveyance can occur. 65 F. Supp. 2d 651, 657-658 (WD Mich. 1999). It found, however, that respondent's husband's use of nonexempt funds to pay the mortgage on the entireties property, which placed them beyond the reach of creditors, constituted a fraudulent act under state law, and the court awarded the IRS a share of the proceeds of the sale of the property equal to that amount. Id., at 659.

Both parties appealed the District Court's decision, the Government again claiming that its lien attached to the husband's interest in the entireties property. The Court of Appeals held that the prior panel's opinion was law of the case on that issue. 233 F. 3d 358, 363-369 (CA6 2000). It also affirmed the District Court's determination that the husband's mortgage payments were fraudulent. Id., at 369-375.

We granted certiorari to consider the Government's claim that respondent's husband had a separate interest in the entireties property to which the federal tax lien attached. 533 U. S. 976 (2001).

II

Whether the interests of respondent's husband in the property he held as a tenant by the entirety constitutes ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
486 cases
  • In re Tousa, Inc., Case No. 08-10928-JKO Jointly Administered (Bankr. S.D.Fla. 10/13/2009)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Eleventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 13 Octubre 2009
    ...Court explained in an analogous context, "if the conclusion were otherwise, the . . . property would belong to no one." United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274, 285 (2002). That conclusion would shield the borrowed funds from creditors even if all of the co-borrowers filed a bankruptcy petitio......
  • Ostrander v. Williams (In re Williams), CASE NO. 11-42792-DML-7
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fifth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Texas
    • 19 Abril 2013
    ...238 B.R. at 551-52; accord Casiello, 333 B.R. at 575. 40. Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142, 147 (2005) (quoting United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274, 287 (2002)). 41. Cf. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344 (1963); In re Norris, 192 B.R. 863, 875 (Bankr. W.D. La. 1995) (citing In......
  • Arrowsmith v. United States (In re Health Diagnostic Lab., Inc.)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fourth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 6 Diciembre 2017
    ...Tax Credit Fund 2001 LP v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , 639 F.3d 129, 140 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Craft , 535 U.S. 274, 278–79, 122 S.Ct. 1414, 152 L.Ed.2d 437 (2002) ).In this case, federal tax law governs any purported property right at issue. Under the Butner principle, ......
  • In re Krause
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Tenth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Kansas
    • 21 Abril 2008
    ...120 S.Ct. 474, 145 L.Ed.2d 466 (1999) (exempt status under state law does not bind the federal collector); United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274, 122 S.Ct. 1414, 152 L.Ed.2d 437 (2002) (federal tax lien attaches to property that is subject to restraints on alienation); Bank One Ohio Trust Co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • In The Room Where It Happens, It Doesn't Always Happen Exactly Right
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 22 Mayo 2023
    ...seemed prescient when the Supreme Court held the federal tax lien reached T by E property a few years later in United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (2002). His practice focuses on tax disputes and tax litigation. He is well known in the tax procedure community and an early guest blogger for......
9 books & journal articles
  • The context of ideology: law, politics, and empirical legal scholarship.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 75 No. 1, December - December 2010
    • 22 Diciembre 2010
    ...Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., 534 U.S. 235 (2002). 151/0820 Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362 (2002). 152/0437 United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (2002). 152/0701 Verizon Commc'ns., Inc. v. F.C.C., 535 U.S. 467 (2002). 152/0888 Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002). 153/0027 Delvin v. Sc......
  • State Water Ownership and the Future of Groundwater Management.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 No. 7, May 2022
    • 1 Mayo 2022
    ...which sticks are in a person's bundle,' and therefore defining property itself is a state-law exercise." (quoting United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274, 278 (2002))); Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 55 (1979) ("Property interests are created and defined by state law."); Leis v. Flynt, ......
  • EXPLORING THE INDISPENSABLE PARTY: A SURVEY OF COMMON CONTEXTS FOR RULE 19 CLAIMS.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 50 No. 3, June 2020
    • 22 Junio 2020
    ...originally filed suit, and which is as convenient to the parties and witnesses as is the federal court."). (102) United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274, 278 (103) Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979). (104) Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Kay Cty., Okla. v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, 7......
  • Partitioning real property in dissolution of marriage actions and suits between unmarried co-tenants: credits, setoffs, ouster, division, and sale.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 82 No. 2, February 2008
    • 1 Febrero 2008
    ...or obligations contracted for house, field, or other labor performed on the realty owned by a natural person. (44) United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (45) Kaecek v. Knight, 447 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1984). (46) Rose v. Hansell, 929 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2006). (47) The decision i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT