Julie Dinwiddie v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Internal Revenue Service

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIE DINWIDDIE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Internal
Revenue Service,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-35368
D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00197-SEH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 9, 2023**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Julie Dinwiddie appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment in this
wrongful levy action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, Opara v. Yellen, 57 F.4th 709, 721 (9th Cir. 2023), and affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAY 11 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Contrary to Julie’s contentions, the United States Internal Revenue Service
(“IRS”) permissibly levied her personal bank accounts to collect money she had
transferred to herself by virtue of her ownership of all stock in the company
Evergreen Nursery Incorporated (“ENI”). The IRS assessed approximately $3.7
million in tax liabilities against Julie’s husband, Jeffrey Dinwiddie in 2007, at which
point a lien in favor of the United States attached to Jeffrey’s property. See 26 U.S.C.
§ 6321. At that time, Jeffrey was the sole stockholder of ENI. Because a tax lien
broadly reaches “every interest in property that a taxpayer might have,” the lien
reached Jeffrey’s stock and any right to monetary distributions associated with that
stock ownership. See United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274, 283, 286 (2002) (citation
omitted). Prior to the time Jeffrey transferred his ENI stock to Julie, the IRS had
recorded its lien in compliance with Alaskan law. See 26 U.S.C. § 6323(f)(1)(A)(ii);
Alaska Stat. § 40.19.020(c). Consequently, Julie received the stock subject to lien
regardless of whether she qualifies as a purchaser of the stock. See 26 U.S.C. §
6323(a); United States v. Bess, 357 U.S. 51, 57 (1958).
Although the IRS discharged its lien against ENI’s sole asset—real property
known as the Old Seward Property—under 26 U.S.C. § 6325(b)(2)(B) in 2008, the
IRS made clear that the lien remained on all of Jeffrey’s other property, including
the ENI stock. The money at issue here consists of funds that Julie distributed from
ENI’s account to her personal bank account pursuant to her authority and rights as

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the sole stockholder of the business. Because the ENI stock was subject to the
federal tax lien at all relevant times, the levy was permissible.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --