## Facts

- James Heptner, a disbarred attorney, worked as a legal advisor and in-house counsel for entrepreneur Damien Freeman, who owned ITS Billing, Inc. (ITS Billing).
- Freeman agreed that ITS Billing would provide funds so Heptner could buy a home in Florida, with the understanding (according to ITS Billing) that the funds were a loan to be secured by a purchase-money note and mortgage.
- Heptner contended that at least part of the money advanced by ITS Billing was not a loan, but profit-sharing distributions or compensation.
- At the home closing, ITS Billing supplied the funds for the purchase, including a $15,000 down payment and a cashier’s check for more than $430,000.
- A dispute arose between ITS Billing and Heptner over documentation of the transaction. ITS Billing sued Heptner in Florida state court to compel him to execute a purchase-money promissory note and mortgage securing the funds ITS Billing provided for the home purchase.
- In the state-court proceeding, Heptner executed the note and mortgage in open court in front of the judge, and the judge signed the documents as well.
- The mortgage was not recorded in the local real-property records.
- Meanwhile, Heptner accumulated substantial federal income-tax liabilities (approximately $250,000) that he did not pay.
- The Internal Revenue Service (United States) filed this federal action to (1) reduce Heptner’s unpaid tax assessments to judgment and (2) foreclose federal tax liens against Heptner’s house.
- The IRS argued that its federal tax liens had priority over ITS Billing’s mortgage because the mortgage was never recorded (and, in the IRS’s view, was therefore not perfected).
- ITS Billing responded that, under Florida law, a purchase-money mortgage is valid without recording and takes priority over later-asserted liens, including the IRS’s liens.

## Issues

1. Whether the United States was entitled to judgment reducing Heptner’s federal tax assessments to a money judgment.
2. Whether ITS Billing’s unrecorded purchase-money mortgage had priority over the federal tax liens on Heptner’s home.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for the United States on Heptner’s unpaid federal tax assessments.
- The court ruled that ITS Billing’s purchase-money mortgage had priority over the federal tax liens with respect to the property, despite the mortgage not being recorded.
- The court treated the state-court determination and the court-supervised execution of the note and mortgage as establishing the purchase-money nature of ITS Billing’s interest, rejecting Heptner’s characterization of the funds as profit-sharing or compensation for purposes of lien priority.

## Legal Principles

- A federal tax lien arises by statute upon assessment and nonpayment and attaches to all of the taxpayer’s property and rights to property.
- State law determines what property rights the taxpayer has; federal law determines the priority of competing liens once those interests are identified.
- A purchase-money mortgage given as part of the same transaction by which the taxpayer acquires title is treated as having priority in the purchased property because the taxpayer acquires only an interest already subject to the purchase-money lien.
- Under Florida law, a mortgage may be valid between the parties even if unrecorded; recording primarily affects enforceability against certain third parties under state recording rules.
- A federal tax lien can attach only to the taxpayer’s actual interest in the property; when the taxpayer’s interest is burdened at acquisition by a purchase-money mortgage, the tax lien attaches to the remaining equity, not ahead of the purchase-money mortgage.

## Conclusion

The court reduced the IRS’s assessments against Heptner to judgment but held that ITS Billing’s court-executed purchase-money mortgage—though never recorded—took priority over the IRS’s federal tax liens on the residence because Heptner acquired the property subject to the purchase-money lien under Florida law, leaving the tax liens to attach only to any remaining equity.


United States v. Heptner, 2016 WL 3344564 (2016)