United States v. Rizzo
1936 U.S. LEXIS 971, 297 U.S. 530, 56 S. Ct. 580 (1936)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal court sitting in admiralty has jurisdiction to enforce a government tax lien against the proceeds of a sale held in the court's registry, as the lien transfers from the property to the funds, which are then within the court's control (in custodia legis).
Facts:
- In December 1932, United States Customs and Coast Guard officials seized a cargo of alcohol.
- The alcohol was found on a vessel that was being employed in a trade other than that for which she was licensed.
- Rizzo filed a claim asserting ownership of the seized alcohol.
- The alcohol was subject to a basic federal tax on distilled spirits, which attaches a lien to the product as soon as it exists.
- The tax on this specific cargo of alcohol had not been paid.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a libel in admiralty in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey, seeking forfeiture of a cargo of alcohol.
- Rizzo, as claimant, filed an answer opposing the forfeiture.
- The District Court entered a decree of forfeiture against the alcohol.
- Rizzo appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the forfeiture decree.
- While a government petition for rehearing was pending, the Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the alcohol to be sold 'free and clear of all claims,' with the proceeds deposited in the court registry.
- The government's petition for certiorari to review the terms of the sale confirmation was denied by the Supreme Court.
- The United States then filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Appeals, asking for the sale proceeds to be paid to the U.S. Treasury to satisfy the tax lien on the alcohol.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government's petition, ruling it was too late to raise the tax issue, and ordered the proceeds paid to Rizzo.
- The United States was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the order denying its petition for the sale proceeds.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court sitting in admiralty have jurisdiction to enforce a non-maritime federal tax lien against the proceeds of a court-ordered sale, when those proceeds are held in the court's registry?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brandeis
Yes. A federal court sitting in admiralty has jurisdiction to enforce a non-maritime federal tax lien against funds held in its registry. The court reasoned that when it ordered the alcohol sold 'free and clear of all claims,' this common procedure did not extinguish the government's tax lien but instead transferred it from the physical property to the proceeds of the sale. Because those proceeds were then in the custody of the court ('in custodia legis'), the court had the authority and obligation to entertain a petition from any party, including the government, asserting an interest in that fund. The government's tax claim was distinct from its initial forfeiture action and was not waived, nor was the government estopped from asserting it, as the tax claim is a separate right based on internal revenue laws that could not have been brought in the original admiralty libel.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that a court's jurisdiction over property in its custody extends to the proceeds generated from that property's sale. It clarifies that ordering a sale 'free and clear of liens' does not destroy the liens but merely transfers them to the resulting fund. The case is significant for establishing that a court, even one of limited jurisdiction like admiralty, gains ancillary jurisdiction to adjudicate non-maritime claims, such as tax liens, against funds it controls. This ensures that lienholders are not left without a remedy when property they have a claim on is liquidated by court order.
