This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The United States is the petitioner and Sandra L. Craft is the respondent.
The case concerns whether a federal tax lien attaches to a taxpayer’s interest in a tenancy by the entirety.
Background and question before the Court
The central question is whether the Federal tax lien that applies by operation of law to all property and rights to property of a delinquent taxpayer attaches to the interest of that taxpayer in a tenancy by the entirety.
What each side argues
United States (Petitioner)
According to KENT L. JONES, ESQ., on behalf of the Petitioner, the petitioner argues that the validity of the lien is the first question; if the lien is valid, there is no need to address the fraudulent conveyance issue.
According to KENT L. JONES, ESQ., on behalf of the Petitioner, the petitioner asserts that the comprehensive text of the Federal tax lien reaches all property and all rights to property, and that the Court has consistently held that the lien reaches every valuable, legally protected right or interest of the taxpayer.
According to Kent L. Jones, the petitioner contends that the tenancy was destroyed when it was transferred from the husband to the spouse and again when the wife sold it to a third party.
Sandra L. Craft (Respondent)
According to Jeffrey S. Sutton (Respondent), according to Jeffrey S. Sutton (Respondent), the respondent argues that the 1975 Michigan statute granting spouses equal rights to rent and income in a tenancy by the entirety does not apply because the tenancy at issue was created in 1972, making the statute irrelevant.
According to Jeffrey S. Sutton (Respondent), according to Jeffrey S. Sutton (Respondent), the respondent points out that under Michigan law (Muskegon Lumber, 1953), a tenancy by the entirety continues even after the spouse receives proceeds, so the tenancy is not terminated by such transfers.
According to Jeffrey S. Sutton (Respondent), according to Jeffrey S. Sutton (Respondent), the respondent notes that Michigan’s 1975 statute states that spouses in a tenancy by the entirety have equal rights to rent, income, and profits, but emphasizes that this statute applies only to tenancies created after 1975.
What happened at oral argument
Justice asked: “These are all contingent rights.”
Justice asked: “Community property is not owned by a community which is a separate entity?”
Justice asked: “Is that wrong?”
Justice asked: “Yes, that may be, but why … a lot of property … owned by communities … tenancy by the entirety.”
Justice asked: “How many States are there that have tenancies by the entireties?”
Mr. Sutton responded that 14 states and the District of Columbia have traditional tenancies by the entirety.
Justice asked: “Well, didn’t this Court comment on that in the Rodgers decision …?”
Justice asked: “In this particular case, wasn’t the Sixth Circuit saying … we have to follow that old precedent?”
Justice asked: “If you follow that rationale … a husband and wife could hold a closely held corporation by the entirety and wouldn’t be liable for income tax?”
Justice asked: “Mr. Sutton, I think there was considerable attention in the Drye case to exactly what it is you look to State law for.”
Justice asked: “Mr. Sutton, this is a question of what the Federal taxing authority can do.”
- [1] 88c8a6d5507b1176a55c-r1-2924a7156c2098f2.pdf, p. 20
- [2] 88c8a6d5507b1176a55c-r1-2924a7156c2098f2.pdf, p. 36
- [3] 88c8a6d5507b1176a55c-r1-2924a7156c2098f2.pdf, p. 37
- [4] 88c8a6d5507b1176a55c-r1-2924a7156c2098f2.pdf, p. 38
- [5] 88c8a6d5507b1176a55c-r1-2924a7156c2098f2.pdf, p. 39
- [6] 88c8a6d5507b1176a55c-r1-2924a7156c2098f2.pdf, p. 39
- [7] 88c8a6d5507b1176a55c-r1-2924a7156c2098f2.pdf, p. 40
- [8] 88c8a6d5507b1176a55c-r1-2924a7156c2098f2.pdf, p. 41
- [9] 88c8a6d5507b1176a55c-r1-2924a7156c2098f2.pdf, p. 42
- [10] 88c8a6d5507b1176a55c-r1-2924a7156c2098f2.pdf, p. 48
- [11] 88c8a6d5507b1176a55c-r1-2924a7156c2098f2.pdf, p. 53
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 88c8a6d5507b1176a55c-r1-2924a7156c2098f2.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.