United States v. Security Trust & Savings Bank of San Diego/Concurrence Jackson
Mr. Justice JACKSON, concurring.

I am persuaded that we are required to hold the tax lien of the Government superior to the California attachment. While we should accept the law of California as its court has declared it, the federal question remains whether it is in conflict with 26 U.S.C. §§ 3670-3672, 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 3670 3672, 53 Stat. 448 as amended, 53 Stat. 882. The history of this tax lien statute indicates that only a judgment creditor in the conventional sense is protected.

United States v. Snyder, 1892, 149 U.S. 210, 13 S.Ct. 846, 37 L.Ed. 705, was decided at a time when the forerunner of the present statute, § 3186 of the Revised Statutes as amended by § 3 of the Act of March 1, 1879, 20 Stat. 331, provided: 'If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount shall be a lien in favor of the United States from the time when the assessment-list was received by the collector, except when otherwise provided, until paid, with the interest, penalties, and costs that may accrue in addition thereto, upon all property and rights to property belonging to such person'.

The Snyder case held, in interpreting the above statute along with Art. I, § 8 of the Constitution, that the lien created by that statute was a valid binding lien even against a bona fide purchaswer for value without knowledge or notice of the existence of such a lien.

Thereafter the statute was amended and a proviso added which said: '* * * That such lien shall not be valid as against any mortgagee, purchaser, or judgment creditor until notice of such lien shall be filed by the collector * * *' in the appropriate place for filing. 37 Stat. 1016. The House Report accompanyng the proposed amendment, H.R.Rep.No. 1018, 62d Cong., 2d Sess. 2, 1912, said in part, after citing the above case: '* * * the lien is so comprehensive that it covers all the property and rights to property of the delinquent situated anywhere in the United States, and any person taking title to real estate is subjected to the impossible task of ascertaining whether any person, who has at any time owned the read estate in question, has been delinquent in the payment of the taxes referred to while the owner of the real estate in question. The business carried on under the internal-revenue law may be at a great distance from the property affected by this secret lien, but this will not relieve the property from the lien.'

In 1938, United States v. Rosenfield, D.C.E.D. Mich., S.D., 26 F.Supp. 433, held that a bona fide purchaser for value of shares of stock from a seller against whom notice of lien for federal income taxes had been duly filed prior to the sale, took subject to the lien even though the purchaser did not have notice or knowledge of such lien. As a direct result of this decision, the statute was again amended, this time to include pledgees and the exception in case of securities as now found in 26 U.S.C. § 3672(b)(1), 26 U.S.C.A. § 3672(b)(1). The for this amendment is disclosed in the Committee Report accompanying the Revenue Bill of 1939. H.R.Rep.No.855, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 26, 1939. This report says, in part: '* * * While it is true that the filing of the notice of the tax lien may constitute notice in the case of real property, it is inequitable for the statute to provide that it constitutes notice as regards securities. * * * An attempt to enforce such liens on recorded notice would in many cases impair the negotiability of securities and seriously interfere with business transactions. * * *'

My conclusion from this history is that the statute excludes from the provisions of this secret lien those types of interests which it specifically included in the statute and no others. 

Notes