United States v. Royce Shoe Company

Decision Date23 January 1956
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 1490.
Citation137 F. Supp. 786
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. ROYCE SHOE COMPANY, The Union Central Life Insurance Company, and The Indian Head National Bank of Nashua.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire

Maurice P. Bois, U. S. Atty., Concord, N. H., Harlan Pomeroy, Special Asst. to Atty. Gen., for the United States.

Wyman, Starr, Booth, Wadleigh & Langdell, Charles J. Dunn, Manchester, N. H., for The Union Cent. Life Ins. Co.

Sullivan & Gregg, S. Robert Winer, Nashua, N. H., for The Indian Head Nat. Bank of Nashua.

CONNOR, District Judge.

Action by the United States under Title 26 U.S.C. § 7403 (Internal Revenue Code of 1954), authorized as provided by Section 7401, to enforce its tax lien against certain life insurance policies. The taxpayer is the Royce Shoe Company, a corporation existing under the laws of New Hampshire and doing business in Newmarket, New Hampshire. Since prior to 1951, it has been the beneficiary with ownership rights in three ordinary life insurance policies issued by The Union Central Life Insurance Company upon the life of one Hyman E. Roffman.

In February of 1951, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed against the taxpayer excess profits taxes, penalties, and interest for its fiscal years of 1944 and 1945. These lists were received by the Collector of Internal Revenue for New Hampshire on February 5, 1951. After giving effect to certain payments and credits, notice was given, and demand was thereafter made upon the taxpayer for the amount then due. A notice of tax lien was filed with this court on March 16, 1951, and similar notices were filed in the county and town of the taxpayer's residence. Later, on June 13, 1951, the taxpayer purported to assign the life insurance policies to The Indian Head National Bank of Nashua. The three policies, against which Roffman makes no claim, are presently in force as paid-up insurance and have substantial cash surrender values.

The question presented is whether the Government's tax lien upon the life insurance policies is superior to the bank's asserted rights.

The liability of the taxpayer is not disputed. Conformably to the terms of Title 26 U.S.C. § 6321 (formerly Section 3670, Title 26 U.S.C., 1939 I.R. C.), a lien was created upon all the property of the taxpayer. The lien attached to the taxpayer's rights in these policies, including the right to elect to receive the cash surrender value. United States v. Behrens, D.C., 130 F.Supp. 93, pending on appeal on other grounds (C.A.2d); United States v. Ison, D.C., 67 F.Supp. 40. Notice of the tax lien was filed under Title 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a) (2) (formerly Section 3672(a) (2), Title 26 U.S.C.), thereby validating the lien against mortgagees, pledgees, purchasers, and judgment creditors. Thus it is apparent that the lien arose and the notice of lien was filed prior to assignment.

The defendant bank seeks to avoid the superiority of the Government's lien by contending that these policies are within the securities exception. Title 26 U.S.C., Section 6323(c) (1) formerly Section 3672(b) (1), Title 26 U.S.C. This section declares that a purchaser, mortgagee, or pledgee of securities for an adequate and full consideration, without knowledge of the lien, acquires a superior interest, and subsection (2) defines the term security as follows: "As used in this subsection the term `security' means any bond, debenture, note, or certificate, or other evidence of indebtedness, issued by any corporation (including one issued by a government or political subdivision thereof), with interest coupons or in registered form, share of stock, voting trust certificate, or any certificate of interest or participation in, certificate of deposit or receipt for, temporary or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • United States v. Sullivan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • April 10, 1964
    ...See Knox v. Great West Life Assur. Co., 109 F.Supp. 207 (E.D.Mich.1952), aff'd, 212 F.2d 784 (6 Cir. 1954); United States v. Royce Shoe Co., 137 F.Supp. 786 (D.N.H.1956). We are of the opinion, however, that the proper characterization of the status of Manufacturers with regard to the polic......
  • United States v. Salerno
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • October 18, 1963
    ...value. United States v. Hoper 7 Cir. 242 F.2d 468; Knox v. Great West Life Assurance Co. 6 Cir., 212 F. 2d 784; United States v. Royce Shoe Co. D.C., 137 F.Supp. 786; Smith v. Donnelly D.C., 65 F.Supp. 415; United States v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. D.C., 46 F.Supp. 30." (Italics Here Mutual Life......
  • United States v. Bess Bess v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1958
    ...value. United States v. Hoper, 7 Cir., 242 F.2d 468; Knox v. Great West Life Assurance Co., 6 Cir., 212 F.2d 784; United States v. Royce Shoe Co., D.C., 137 F.Supp. 786; Smith v. Donnelly, D.C., 65 F.Supp. 415; United States v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., D.C., 46 F.Supp. But it is contended that ......
  • United States v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • January 14, 1958
    ...issued to taxpayer upon his life. Kyle v. McGuirk, 3 Cir., 82 F.2d 212; Cannon v. Nicholas, 10 Cir., 80 F.2d 934; United States v. Royce Shoe Co., D.C.D.N.H., 137 F.Supp. 786; Knox v. Great West. Life Assur. Co., D.C.E.D.Mich., 109 F. Supp. 207, affirmed 6 Cir., 212 F.2d 784; United States ......
  • 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