Talk:Tax lien

Lien versus levy
The section I have added on the difference between a tax "lien" and a "levy" for U.S. Federal tax purposes is added because I have found in my practice a lot of confusion in the public, and even among some IRS employees, on these terms. Eventually the section on "levy" could be expanded and possibly made into a separate article. Yours, Famspear 22:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

linking to a commercial site
Would it be inappropriate to link to http://www.lienexchange.com? Although this is a commercial website they provide completely free access to a comprehensive database on tax liens by state and county... I couldn't find any other site providing that type and quality of information.

Tax liens are a matter of public record. There is no need to include commercial sites into this mess. I have removed this link, if anyone else cares to argue for commercial sites, please discuss here; otherwise, I will consider it as spam. --71.49.111.83 05:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually put it up again, as that site provides the only database I could find on tax liens by state and counties. And it offers it completely free with no registration required. - Therefor I would not consider that link to be commercial. It is rather encyclopedic... ARebour 16:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add any commercial sites to this article. There are "watch our TV commercials", buy this book links, etc. It doesn't need to have registration required to make it uncommercial. This is clearly spam. --Jbanning22 09:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This link has been discussed on several occasions before. I will not put it up again. Although to my knowledge it is the only site that gives all this useful encyclopedic information completely for free. The remaining link by the way does not contain ANY useful information at all... ARebour 09:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest adding books as references, there's a few on google books that's accessible and free. --76.5.199.180 17:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

linking to another commercial site
www.InvestingWithoutLosing.com provides similar features as lienexchange but more up to date

Enigmatic material moved from article
The following garbled material (complete with the fragment "You"), which had been inserted at the end of the article by an anonymous user, has been moved to this discussion page, for what should be obvious reasons:


 * I have no idea what you guys are taolking abpit. Why are we suppose ro pay taxes? I mean we have som mnay poaces where we have to pay and now property taxes? You

Yours, Famspear 23:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Tax protester gibberish regarding allodial title, etc.
An anonymous editor has repeatedly added the following nonsense:


 * The failure of the Federal Government to ratify the 16th Amendment  raises legal question as to any tax lean. Prior to the 1930’s Americans owned their land under Allodial Title  and there was no tax on land or property. Allodial Title formed a core concept to the formation of the U.S.A. in that people were secure on their land from government intrusion and tax.


 * When the Federal Reserve Bank artificially induced the Great Depression, they placed in government agents of that privately held bank who implemented Socialism, FCC, SEC and the IRS which created an induced cash and interest flow for the privately held Federal Reserve Bank’s Notes. Secretary of State Philander Knox simply announced the 16th Amendment was ratified when it was not . It has been well established up to the Supreme Court level that the 16th Amendment was not ratified and added no new taxing authority. The IRS, Federal Government and local County Tax collectors assume authority that is not theirs and operate a criminal enterprise collecting taxes under the color of law. Nevada is one of the States who still offers their citizens a means of perfecting Allodial Title on their property, eliminating all future tax on the land.

The above material is almost completely incorrect.

The Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified, as every federal court considering this issue has ruled. The web site, "the law that never was", which is cited (including the preposterous argument that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified) has been ruled in federal court to be part of a fraudulent scheme.

The statement that it "has been well established up to the Supreme Court level that the 16th Amendment was not ratified" is a blatant lie. Every single federal court -- without a single exception -- that has considered this has rejected the laughable argument that the Amendment was not properly ratified. Neither the Supreme Court nor any other court has ever ruled that the Amendment was not properly ratified. (See below.)

As noted in one or more Wikipedia articles, it is however correct to say that the Amendment added no NEW powers of taxation. The problem is that the tax protester who spread this kind of garbage on the internet want to argue that this statement means something else (see articles referenced below). For example, even if there were no Sixteenth Amendment, income taxes on compensation earned by individuals would still be taxable.

The statement that there was no tax on land or property prior to the 1930s is laughable, blatantly false, and is indeed completely delusional. State and local property taxes on land and other property have existed since the founding of the nation. (Note: There is essentially no federal property tax.)

The term "allodial title" is a technical legal term. Neither Nevada nor any other state offers a way to eliminate future tax on land in the way described in the material quoted above. Of course, a particular state might have a constitutional provision that negates the possibility of a property tax, or an income tax, or a sales tax, etc. (for example, the Texas Constitution prohibits a personal income tax), but that is a separate issue.

For background, see:


 * Tax protester (United States)
 * Tax protester arguments
 * Tax protester constitutional arguments
 * The Law that Never Was

Per the consensus at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tax_protester/Request_for_comment

this kind of tax protester rhetoric should be removed on sight. Yours, Famspear (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, the "libertyforlife" web site that was cited appears to be completely unreliable for purposes of Wikipedia. It appears to be copying copyrighted material from what is found (or was formerly found) at the fraudulent "thelawthatneverwas" web site. So, the material is also apparently objectionable on copyright and reliability grounds as well. Famspear (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

lien as a debt
I deleted a one-paragraph lien that points out that a property tax lien runs with the land. That's just what it means to be a lien, and the introductory paragraph says a tax lien is a lien and links to the article about liens.

The paragraph also suggests that a lien represents money owed by the current owner of the property. This isn't true. The current owner doesn't owe anything; he just doesn't own as much of the property as he would without the lien. The lien holder can't force the owner to pay anything; he simply sells the property and takes what he's owed from that. If the owner wants to retain possession of the land, of course, he has the right to pay off the lien and avoid the sale.

Finally, with respect to property tax, I think most US states don't consider them debts even of the person who gets the original tax bill. The tax is assessed against the property itself, and the owner pays the tax just to keep the county from selling the property out from under him to collect the tax.

Bryan Henderson (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the "lien" is not the debt or obligation itself; the lien is the security interest in the property, and is created to secure the satisfaction of the debt. (I'm using the term "debt" here in a broad, non-technical sense -- in the general sense of a financial obligation or liability.)


 * I'm not aware of any states that do not impose a personal liability on person who owns the property at the time of the creation of the lien. However, I haven't researched the laws of the states, except for Texas (where I live).


 * Certainly, in Texas, the general rule is that there is personal liability for the person who owns the property at the time of the creation of the lien -- and that personal liability is not extinguished merely because he or she later sells the property:


 * (a) Except as provided by Subsections (b) and (c) of this section, property taxes are the personal obligation of the person who owns or acquires the property on January 1 of the year for which the tax is imposed or would have been imposed had property not been omitted as described under Section 25.21.  A person is not relieved of the obligation because he no longer owns the property.


 * --from Texas Tax Code section 32.07(a).


 * The person named in the second sentence of subsection (a) has both personal liability and (while he or she owns the property) in rem liability, while the person who later acquires the property has only in rem liability. Famspear (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As you have more or less noted, some legal terms are used imprecisely. For example, many people will say, "I'm paying off the mortgage on my house." To be more precise, what they're doing is paying off the debt. The debt is evidenced by a promissory note, while the lien is evidenced by a mortgage document (or, in some states, a deed of trust). The lien (whether evidenced by a mortgage document or a deed of trust) is the security interest in the property -- the security interest that can be used by the creditor to sell the house if the borrower doesn't pay the debt. Famspear (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The power of distraint
The article correctly states that under U.S. tax law, the power of levy (which is different from the concept of a tax lien) includes the power of seizure and distraint.

A new editor changed the article to contradict that, and incorrectly cited verbiage from the famous U.S. Supreme Court case of Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960) ("Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint...").

That language does not contradict or any way modify the exact language of the statute itself. The statute clearly states that the power of administrative levy includes the power of seizure and "distraint" -- by "any means". The Supreme Court in Flora was referring to the federal income tax system -- which is based on voluntary filing of income tax returns and voluntary payment of tax. The word "voluntary" in the Flora case does NOT mean that the filing of returns itself is not required by law. The word "voluntary" in the Flora case does NOT mean that the payment of tax is not required by law. The fact that the SYSTEM is not based on "distraint" does not change the point that the law also gives the government the legal power of distraint.

Similarly, the income tax law is not "based on" seizure of assets to satisfy a tax debt -- but that does not mean that the law does not give the government the legal power to do just that if you don't voluntarily pay your tax.

This is called voluntary compliance.

Similarly, vehicle traffic laws in this country are based on voluntary compliance. The fact that you are required to voluntarily drive no faster than the speed limit even when there is no policeman around does not mean that there is no law prohibiting you from driving over the speed limit.

What the new editor did was to take a quote from a court case out of context. The edit seemed to imply that the Supreme Court decision in the Flora case stands for the proposition that the government does not have the power of "distraint." That is not what the Supreme Court said and, more importantly, that is not what the Court DECIDED.

The Flora case is a famous federal tax case. The case stands for the general rule (subject to some exceptions) that if you want to contest a federal tax in court, you must FIRST pay the tax that the Internal Revenue Service claims you owe, and then sue for a refund. Nowhere did the court ever rule that the government does not have the general legal power of distraint with respect to federal taxes.

This is why Wikipedia has a rule called No Original Research: WP:NOR. Famspear (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)