Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Contradictory sections in 26 USC re honoring levies
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Fred Marshall <fredm07@...> wrote:
> 26 USC 6332(d)(1) is something a payroll clerk could cite as
> justification for not defying a levy. Years ago, I found another
> section somewhere in 26 USC that says something to the effect that a
> person wrongly surrendering property or monies of the one being levied
> *can* be held liable by the person whose property or money it is, but
> for the life of me, I haven't been able to find it.
> Anyone know where that is? (I've searched using FindLaw & Cornell's LII
> site, to no avail.)
> Once I find/get that, I want to investigate if they're really
> contradictory, and if so, which one takes precedence & why.
> Thanks in advance for your help - I appreciate it.
"the IR Manual shows that the IRS even agrees with those established principles and encourages their agents to abide by those principles by citing the authority of United States v. O'Dell [160 F.2d 304] which says that a proper levy against amounts held as due and owing by employers, banks, stockbrokers, etc., must issue from a warrant of distraint (court order) and not by mere notice. The O' Dell Court specifically stated that: "The method of accomplishing a levy ... is the issuing of warrants of distraint ..." and that the Internal Revenue Service must also serve "...with the notice of levy, [a] copy of the warrants of distraint and [the] notice of lien." The court emphasized that the "...Levy is not effected by mere notice." Source: http://www.save-a-patriot.org/articles/levy.html