## Facts

- The United States assessed Robert G. Peters, Jr. and his wife for unpaid 1952 federal income taxes, and a federal tax lien arose on all of their property.
- About ten months later, the Peters executed a mortgage on their Oakland County, Michigan real property to Union Central Life Insurance Company.
- After the Peters defaulted, Union Central initiated a Michigan foreclosure action and joined the United States due to the federal tax lien.
- Michigan law allowed recording federal tax lien notices in county land records only if the notice included a description of the land on which the lien was claimed; county officials refused notices lacking such descriptions.
- The federal government used its standard notice form, which asserted a lien on “all property” and contained no parcel description, and filed the notice with the clerk of the United States District Court for the relevant district.
- Union Central claimed priority because no notice was filed with the county register of deeds; the United States argued Michigan had not “authorized” a usable state filing office under federal law, permitting federal court filing.

## Issues

1. Whether Michigan had “by law authorized the filing” of federal tax lien notices in a state office under § 3672(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 when state law and practice required a land description absent from the standard federal notice.
2. If not, whether § 3672(a)(2) permitted filing the federal tax lien notice in federal district court, making the earlier federal lien valid against and prior to a later-recorded mortgage.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Michigan Supreme Court.
- Michigan had not “authorized” filing in a state office within the meaning of § 3672(a)(1) because the state statute and recording practice imposed incompatible conditions that prevented acceptance of the standard federal notice.
- Because the state had not authorized a usable state filing office, § 3672(a)(2) applied and the United States properly filed in federal district court.
- The federal tax lien, noticed by the federal court filing, was valid against and had priority over Union Central’s subsequently recorded mortgage.

## Legal Principles

- A state “authorizes” filing of federal tax lien notices under § 3672(a)(1) only if state law and practice allow filing of a federally compliant notice without imposing incompatible content requirements.
- When a state has not authorized a workable in-state filing office for federal tax lien notices, § 3672(a)(2) permits filing with the clerk of the appropriate federal district court.
- A federal tax lien on “all property” need not be reshaped to satisfy state recording demands that conflict with the federal notice form and scheme.
- Proper filing under the applicable subsection of § 3672 determines validity against protected third parties (including mortgagees) and fixes priority as between the federal lien and later encumbrances.

## Conclusion

Because Michigan’s recording conditions effectively blocked filing of the standard federal tax lien notice in county records, the United States could file in federal district court under § 3672(a)(2), and that filing preserved the federal tax lien’s priority over Union Central’s later mortgage.


United States v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 368 U.S. 291 (1961)