ILNews

IBA: Tax Liens Live After Debts, Clients Die

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Adam D. Christensen

In Shakespeare’s The Tempest, the drunken butler, Stephano, quips, “He that dies pays all his debts.” Obviously, the Bard’s fool had no experience with tax liens, which may cause as many problems for clients during and after life as the underlying debt itself.

Tax liens are filed when a taxpayer (individual or corporate) owes federal or state taxes from income, excise, employment, or sales tax. The taxing agencies that issue tax liens, the Internal Revenue Service and the Indiana Department of Revenue, assert that liens protect the government’s interest in a delinquent taxpayer’s property and increase the likelihood of collection. Given the scope and permanence of tax liens, these goals are doubtlessly met.

However, the unintended consequences of tax liens can serve not only as a complication but a blockade to collection and may cause the taxpayer irreparable harm along the way.

Tax liens attach to all assets owned by the taxpayer at the time the lien is filed and to any assets acquired afterward. Homes and other real estate, lines of credit, vehicles, equipment, even some investments may be effected. What’s more, tax liens stick to these assets until the underlying tax is paid in full regardless whether the taxpayer can afford to pay the debt or not.

By design, a tax lien restricts an owner’s ability to sell or transfer assets by clouding title. When the asset is sold, the government is entitled to an amount equal to its interest up to full, unencumbered value of the asset. Without payment, the lien remains and the asset cannot be transferred with clear title. Without clear title, the sale may be challenged in court and in due course reversed.

What’s more, Indiana is a “first to file” state with respect to secured interests, meaning the tax lien falls in line behind any prior secured interests in the asset, such as a mortgage. In foreclosure and property tax sale cases, a tax lien effectively wipes out any equity that may have been used to modify a mortgage or pay property taxes to avoid repossession.

Tax liens also impair a taxpayer’s ability to refinance. In addition to muddying priority and sapping equity, tax liens are listed on credit reports and can decrease a taxpayer’s credit rating by 100 points or more. Alarmingly, even seven years after the debt is paid in full, a notation showing a prior lien may negatively affect a taxpayer’s credit and ability to borrow.

For taxpayers working in fields such as finance, real estate, and law, tax liens can be ruinous. When a tax lien is filed, these people are at risk of losing their professional licenses, their ability to seek new employment, and even their current jobs.

Finally, and despite Stephano’s assertion, tax liens remain attached to assets even if the taxpayer dies before satisfying the debt. The liens entitle the taxing agency to an interest in the taxpayer’s estate presumably so the taxpayer can repay his debt from beyond the grave.

Often, tax liens are viewed by many practitioners as akin to judgment liens. However, tax liens may be more devastating because of the speed with which they are issued.

Feasibly, a tax lien may be filed roughly 90 days after tax assessment and without a court order. IRS procedures authorize automated lien filings when an unpaid tax balance is greater than $5,000. The IDR has no such restrictions and may file a lien without regard to the balance amount. Compare this to the lengthy, burdensome, and costly process necessary to secure a judgment lien.

In the past decade, the IRS has increased tax lien filings by 550%, and, though Indiana does not publish statistics relating to tax lien filings, it is likely the IDR has kept pace. Practitioners today are more likely than ever to encounter tax lien issues. Though attorneys may not be able to cure all the harms caused by a tax lien, here are four tips to ensure the damage is minimal.

The IRS may not file a lien for unpaid balances up to $25,000 for individuals and $10,000 for corporate entities if the taxpayer enters into an agreement to pay the debt in 60 or 24 months, respectively.

New IRS guidelines allow for taxpayers to request removal of tax liens if the underlying balance is reduced below these threshold amounts and the taxpayer agrees to have the agreement payments debited directly from a bank account.

Filing Form 12277 once a tax debt is paid will cause the IRS to “withdraw” a lien, rather than “remove” it, and will immediately expunge the lien from the taxpayer’s records.

Requesting lien subordination may not only give a taxpayer a chance to use equity to pay tax debt, it may help challenge the lien filing in Tax Court (Alessio Azzari v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 9 (2011)).•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT