United States of Am., Internal Revenue Serv. v. Barlow's, Inc., in Re Barlow's Inc., Debtor, 767 F.2d 1098 (4th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
United States of Am., Internal Revenue Serv. v. Barlow's, Inc., in Re Barlow's Inc., Debtor, 767 F.2d 1098 (4th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
53 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ian Michael Stead Belinda A. Stead v. United States (ca9, 2005-08-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ian Michael Stead Belinda A. Stead v. United States (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
9th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Pittman, 449 F.2d 623, 628 (7th Cir.1971) (holding that a levy constituted payment of tax when the government also took the deed to a property, managed it, and collected rents from tenants); United States v. Barlows, Inc., 767 F.2d 1098, 1100 (4th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (holding that the risk of loss transferred when the IRS assumed dominion over a fully earned account receivable and entered into a payment agreement with the debtor); see also Enos, 123 T.C. at 299-300 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joseph F. and Caroline Enos v. Commissioner (2×)
Tax Ct. · 2004 · confidence medium
In support of their contention, petitioners cite United States v. Barlow’s, Inc., 767 F.2d 1098 10 (...continued) to) property or rights to property subject to levy and upon which a levy has been made shall, upon demand of the district director, surrender the property or rights (or discharge the obligation) to the district director, except that part of the property or rights (or obligation) which, at the time of the demand, is actually or constructively under the jurisdiction of a court because of an attachment or execution under any judicial process. - 25 - (4th Cir. 1985), affg. 53 Bankr. …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Balzer v. United States
9th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
United States v. Barlows, Inc., 767 F.2d 1098, 1100 (4th Cir.1985). .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Enos
unknown court · Tho · confidence medium
United States v. Barlow’s, Inc., 767 F.2d 1098, 1100 (4th Cir. 1985).
cited Cited "see" Michael A. Zapara and Gina A. Zapara v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Barlow’s, Inc., 767 F.2d 1098 (4th Cir. 1985), affg. 53 Bankr. 986 (E.D.
cited Cited "see" In re Nece
S.D. Tex. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Barlow’s Inc., 767 F.2d 1098 (4th Cir.1985); Mangieri v. United States, 657 F.Supp. 726 (D.Md. 1986).
discussed Cited "see" Zapara (2×)
unknown court · Mic · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Barlow’s, Inc., 767 F.2d 1098 (4th Cir. 1985), affg. 53 Bankr. 986 (E.D.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Zapara v. Commissioner
9th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id.; see also United States v. Barlows, Inc., 53 B.R. 986, 989 (E.D.Ya.1984), aff'd, 767 F.2d 1098 (4th Cir.1985) (“By its actions, which were inconsistent with the statute, the IRS assumed any risk with respect to Western’s failure to pay.”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Stead v. United States
9th Cir. · 2005 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Murphy, 45 F.3d at 523 , and Cash, 961 F.2d at 568-69 , with Barlow’s, Inc., 767 F.2d at 1100 , and Pittman, 449 F.2d at 628 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. LaRosa
D. Maryland · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., United States v. Barlow’s, Inc., 767 F.2d 1098 (4th Cir.1985) (discussed above); 26 U.S.C. § 6335 (1994) (stating that the IRS must conduct a sale “as soon as practicable”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Internal Revenue Service, Appellant,
v.
BARLOW’S, INC., Appellee. in Re BARLOW’S INCORPORATED, Debtor
84-1982.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jul 22, 1985.
767 F.2d 1098
Wynette J. Hewett, Washington, D.C. (Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, Patricia A. Willing, Washington, D.C., Elsie L. Munsell, U.S. Atty., Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellant., Francis P. Dicello, Washington, D.C. (John J. Sabourin, Jr., Richard S. Marshall, Hazel, Beckhorn & Hanes, Fairfax, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Sprouse, Ervin, Wilkinson.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published
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,[*1100] 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, $102,644.85, 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, [1] 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.

1

. 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.