WPC(: Ɛӧ?Xba`~gȇw"MHi)c*,1VlB=ؔcnMQjFB g;~X?QW[H~M>TEMiJzKi:`.5 ,halEG1vܳ`YSoC1F5qD>^M?+X4r 0&3D>{듦CӢ x^" <;dP@C˗#xrf#|(gh+=اz[ܜ48hsaz}¦]kW%nS~y )@k^< 3eq)-, <|fIР(\Fj!{jbt(J#Z^7&Aϙ1̴PSmrkœ"Mc#YH1V>#m # F UNQ % 0( " 0 l U)F[ wL 4  UP UF` 0D "  UFUF UF 1UF"+#UFJ$ $UF4/z/#/UF2UF2 B13UFN33UF44 55%55Z6"p6"66 D37U:8 0D?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8?8 AO888 0D9 D/9 B :HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($   ` ((3$ !      0  <4 9Z .Courier New Regular a b b b b b b b V D  Ӏh&3|x &@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular(#$  0     `   $    3    XHXXXѷXXH26U.S.C.A.6321provides,inpertinentpart,asfollows: `    8 ` Ifanypersonliabletopayanytaxneglectsorrefusestopaythesameafterdemand,theamount...shallbealieninfavoroftheUnitedStatesuponallpropertyandrightstoproperty,whetherrealorpersonal,belongingtosuchperson. ` `    26ѷѷU.S.C.A.6324establishesalienforestatetaxes,providingthat    8 ` [u]nlesstheestatetaximposedbychapter11issoonerpaidinfull,orbecomesunenforceablebyreasonoflapseoftime,itshallbealienuponthegrossestateofthedecedentfor10yearsfromthedateofdeath....#ѷѷ#<4 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    4    XHXXXѷXXHT.C.A.6711403(d)providesthatalienforinheritancetaxesshall `   ariseatthedateofdeath,whileT.C.A.ѷѷ#ѷѷ#Ԁ302317provides,inpertinent   part,asfollows:  8 ` (a)Allclaimsordemandsagainsttheestateofanydeceasedpersonshallbedividedintothefollowingclassifications,whichshallhavepriorityintheordershown: ` `  @%***  8 ` (2)Second:Taxesandassessmentsimposedbythefederaloranystategovernmentorsubdivisionthereof;.... ` `  @%***  8 ` (b)Alldemandsagainsttheestateshallbepaidbythepersonalrepresentativeintheorderinwhichtheyareclassed,andnodemandofoneclassshallbepaiduntiltheclaimsofallpriorclassesaresatisfiedorprovidedfor;andifthereshallnotbesufficientassetstopaythewholeofanyoneclass,theclaimsinsuchclassshallbepaidprorata.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    6    XHXXXѷXXH31U.S.C.A.3713(b)providesasfollows: `    8 ` Arepresentativeofapersonoranestate(exceptatrusteeactingundertitle11)payinganypartofadebtofthepersonorestatebeforepayingaclaimoftheGovernmentisliabletotheextentofthepaymentforunpaidclaimsoftheGovernment.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular $    7    XHXXXѷXXHTheDepartmentofRevenuealsocontendsthat,evenifѷѷ3713#ѷѷ#Ԁappliesto `  debtsofadecedentsestate,thestatutesapplicationneverthelessislimited.TheDepartmentofRevenuearguesthatit doesnotspecificallyaddressfederaltaxlienpriorities,whichareinsteadsetforthat26U.S.C.A.6321,etseq.Itreliesinpartuponthecaseof UnitedStatesv.   EstateofRomani ,523U.S.517,118S.Ct.1478,140L.E.2d,710(1998),in  | whichtheSupremeCourtheldthatanexceptiontotheabsolutepriorityof3713existsinthecaseofajudgmentcreditorspreviouslyfiledlienthatfallswithinthescopeofѷѷ26U.S.C.A.6323(a).Thatsectionprovides,in  pertinentpart,thatthegeneralfederaltaxliensetforthat#ѷѷ#ѷѷ26U.S.C.A. H  6321#ѷѷa#Ԁ shallnotbevalidasagainstanypurchaser,holderofasecurity X  interest,mechanicslienor,orjudgmentliencreditoruntilnoticethereofisproperlyrecorded.However,priordecisionsoftheSupremeCourtindicatethatstateandlocaltaxliensarenot judgmentliensanddonotfallwithinthescopeofѷѷ26U.S.C.A.6323(a).See UnitedStatesv.GilbertAssociates,   Inc. ,345U.S.361,36365,73S.Ct.701,97L.Ed.1071(1953)#ѷѷ*#ѷѷ(holdingthat t  theexistenceofalocaltaxliendoesnotmakethetaxingentitya judgmentliencreditorunderthepredecessorto6323.);seealso UnitedStatesv. @  CityofNewBritain ,347U.S.81,88,74S.Ct.367,98L.Ed.520(1954)   ( Thereisnothinginthelanguageof[thepredecessorto6323]toshowthatCongressintendedantecedentfederaltaxlienstorankbehindanybutthespecificcategoriesofinterestssetouttherein,andthelegislativehistorylendssupporttothisimpression.)Thus,the Romani #ѷѷ#ѷѷԀdecisionisnot h applicabletothefactsofthiscase.TheDepartmentofRevenuesargumentonthispointiswithoutmerit.#ѷѷ #<4 9Z .Courier New Regular ! $    1    X4YXXXaXX4YTheincometaxcomponentofthefederalclaimapparentlyisbasedon `  taxesdueonincomeearnedbytheEstateafterWalkersdeath.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular $    7    XHXXXѷXXHTheDepartmentofRevenuealsocontendsthat,evenif ѷѷ3713#ѷѷ#Ԁappliesto `  debtsofadecedentsestate,thestatutesapplicationneverthelessislimited.TheDepartmentofRevenuearguesthatit doesnotspecificallyaddressfederaltaxlienpriorities,whichareinsteadsetforthat26U.S.C.A.6321,etseq.Itreliesinpartuponthecaseof UnitedStatesv.   EstateofRomani ,523U.S.517,118S.Ct.1478,140L.E.2d,710(1998),in  | whichtheSupremeCourtheldthatanexceptiontotheabsolutepriorityof3713existsinthecaseofajudgmentcreditorspreviouslyfiledlienthatfallswithinthescopeof ѷѷ26U.S.C.A.6323(a).Thatsectionprovides,in  pertinentpart,thatthegeneralfederaltaxliensetforthat#ѷѷ# ѷѷ26U.S.C.A. H  6321#ѷѷa#Ԁ shallnotbevalidasagainstanypurchaser,holderofasecurity X  interest,mechanicslienor,orjudgmentliencreditoruntilnoticethereofisproperlyrecorded.However,priordecisionsoftheSupremeCourtindicatethatstateandlocaltaxliensarenot judgmentliensanddonotfallwithinthescopeof ѷѷ26U.S.C.A.6323(a).See UnitedStatesv.GilbertAssociates,   Inc. ,345U.S.361,36365,73S.Ct.701,97L.Ed.1071(1953)#ѷѷ*# ѷѷ(holdingthat t  theexistenceofalocaltaxliendoesnotmakethetaxingentitya judgmentliencreditorunderthepredecessorto6323.);seealso UnitedStatesv. @  CityofNewBritain ,347U.S.81,88,74S.Ct.367,98L.Ed.520(1954)   ( Thereisnothinginthelanguageof[thepredecessorto6323]toshowthatCongressintendedantecedentfederaltaxlienstorankbehindanybutthespecificcategoriesofinterestssetouttherein,andthelegislativehistorylendssupporttothisimpression.)Thus,the Romani #ѷѷ# ѷѷԀdecisionisnot h applicabletothefactsofthiscase.TheDepartmentofRevenuesargumentonthispointiswithoutmerit.#ѷѷ #<4 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    5    XHXXXѷXXHSeveralcasescitedinthisopinionaddresspriorversionsofthe `  FederalInsolvencyStatute,whichwasmostrecentlyamendedin1982.However,nosubstantivechangesinthestatutehaveoccurredsincethecitedcasesweredecided.See UnitedStatesv.Coppola ,85F.3d1015,1019n.3(2ndCir. p  1996)(citingH.R.Rep.No.651,97thCong.,2dSess.13,reprintedin1982 ,  U.S.C.C.A.N.1895,189597).Therefore,wearecomfortableinrelyingѷѷon   casesdecidedpriortotheamendmentinouranalysisofthestatuteinitscurrentform.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular d<4 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    2    "X]XXX"XX]TheEstatedeposited$675,653.09withthetrialcourt,suchamount P  representingalloftheremainingassetsoftheEstate.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular           $    2    XHXXXѷXXHTheEstatedeposited$675,653.09withthetrialcourt,saidamount `  representingessentiallyalloftheremainingassetsoftheEstate.      `    `  ,X@ XXX,ͬ  X,X@   Ad FILED,  ,ͬ   July13,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.,+  ,AppellateCourt  Clerk 'dxd,cAZ"Arial Regular(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  P TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdXXd7X4YXXX     KF    E    #j      $[     %j    '[   ([E   )KF   r*+<,(j 8 `@EQ  tt0"HP rߛ @| | INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE P  @$ATKNOXVILLEESTATEOFJ.P.WALKER, h   )C/ANO.03A019808PB00250 T    `     h   )  Plaintiff,   h   )     `     h   )v.   `     h   ) \     `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )TENNESSEEDEPARTMENTOFREVENUE,)APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE   `     h   )SEVIERCOUNTYPROBATECOURT  DefendantAppellant,  ) `     `     h   )and   `     h   ) \     `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,  ) d    `     h   )HONORABLECHARLESS.SEXTON,  DefendantAppellee. h   )  JUDGE ` ForAppellant    h     ForAppellee !h PAULG.SUMMERS   h     WILLIAMS.ESTABROOK d# AttorneyGeneralandReporter    ROBERTL.BAKER :$ Nashville,Tennessee h     TaxDivision %     `     h     DepartmentofJusticeM.TYPRYOR    h     Washington,D.C. &l" AssistantAttorneyGeneralNashville,Tennessee h     CARLK.KIRKPATRICK h($    `     h     UnitedStatesAttorney,   `     h     EasternDistrictofTennessee   `     h     Knoxville,Tennessee@$ X+XXX4Y  0W X X+OPINION X+X  0W X4YXX X+Ԉ 4*3  )KF` P   )KF  `    AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED h      p      x Susano,J. ^:09 )KF` P   )KF` P     ([E` P     E` P     KF` P    O` P   ќ    ` ThisappealrequiresustodeterminewhethertheclaimoftheUnitedStatesagainsttheEstateofJ.P.Walker( theEstate)forfederalincomeandestatetaxesisentitledtoprioritytreatmentasagainsttheTennesseeDepartmentofRevenuesclaimforstateinheritancetaxes.ThetrialcourttheSevierCountyProbateCourtheld,X4YXX X4YpursuanttotheFederal \  InsolvencyStatute,31U.S.C.A.3713,# X4YXXX4Y #ԛthattheUnitedStates h  wasentitledtopriorityastotheremainingassetsoftheϜEstate.TheDepartmentofRevenueappeals,contendingthatitsinheritancetaxclaimisonanequalfootingwiththefederalclaimand,therefore,shouldshareproratainthedistribution  oftheEstatesremainingassets.@*I   ` J.P.WalkerdiedtestateonJanuary4,1991.Hisestatewassubsequentlyassessedfederalestatetaxesofapproximately$2,000,000,plusinterestandpenalties,aswellasfederalincometaxes  #  1      כofapproximately$700,000,againplus '$$ interestandpenalties.AsofJanuary31,1995,theEstatesaggregatefederaltaxliabilityhadgrownto$4,245,627.10.TheDepartmentofRevenuesclaimagainsttheEstate,includinginterestandpenalties,isintheamountof$634,528.   ` OnOctober25,1996,theEstatefiledanoticeofϜinsolvencyinthetrialcourt.OnFebruary20,1998,itfiledanumberofmotions,includingamotioninthenatureofinterpleader,amotionregardingfinaldistribution,andanotice 60-6 '[  '[  '[  '[  '[    '[   ofdepositoffunds,askingthetrialcourttodeterminethe '[   priorityofthecompetingtaxclaims.ThepartiesagreethattheEstateisinsolventandthatitdoesnothavesufficientfundstopaybothtaxclaimsinfull.XHXX XH & !  #  2      # XHXXXH#ԛ d    ` InconnectionwiththeEstatesmotions,theUnitedStatescontended,andstillcontends,thatitisentitledtoaprioritypositionwithrespecttothefunds  depositedbytheEstateintheregistryofthetrialcourt.ItclaimsaprioritybasedontheFederalInsolvencyStatute,31U.S.C.A.3713.Thatstatuteprovides,inpertinentpart,asfollows:  8 ` AclaimoftheUnitedStatesGovernmentshallbepaidfirstwhen ` `  @XX%***  8 ` (B)theestateofadeceaseddebtor,inthecustodyoftheexecutororadministrator,isnotenoughtopayalldebtsofthedebtor. ` `  _31XHXX XHU.S.C.A.3713# XHXXXH#(a)(1)(B).Inthealternative,theUnited &B# StatesarguesthatitholdsfederalincomeandestatetaxliensagainsttheEstatethatareentitledtopriorityundertheInternalRevenueCode,specifically26U.S.C.A.XHXX XH# XHXXXH#XHXX XH# XHXXXHV#Ԁ6321and +F") 6324.  #  3      כ R-#+ Ї   ` TheDepartmentofRevenuecontendedbelow,asitdoesonappeal,thatXHXX XHtheFederalInsolvencyStatute,specifically31   U.S.C.A.3713(a)(1)(B),# XHXXXH#ԛdoesnotapplytotheinstantcase,  X becausethestateinheritancetaxclaimisnota debtofthedebtorsinceitaroseafterhisdeath;thatitslienforstate  inheritancetaxesaroseatthesametimeasthefederalestatetaxlien,i.e.,uponWalkersdeath;thatitslienis t  sufficientlyperfectedorchoatesoastohaveequalprioritywiththefederalliens;andthat,intheabsenceofafederalstatutespecifyinghowprioritybetweentheseliensshouldbedetermined,thecompetingclaimsshouldshareproratainthe 0 distributionoftheEstatesremainingassets,pursuanttoT.C.A.XHXX XH# XHXXXH##Ԁ302317and6711403.  #  4       4    ` FollowingahearingontheEstatesmotions,thetrialcourtfound  8 ` thatthelawsoftheUnitedStatesinthisinstanceandunderthesefactsandcircumstancespreemptthestatutesoftheStateofTennesseeandthattheIRSisentitledtopriorityofdistributiontothefullextentofitstaxclaimsovertheclaimassertedbythe[Departmentof * ' Revenue].InasmuchasthereareinsufficientfundswithwhichtodischargeinfulltheIRSclaim,itfollowsthattheIRSisentitledtotheentiretyofthefundsondepositintheregistryoftheCourttogetherwiththebalanceoffunds,ifany,whichwillbeavailabletotheEstateforapplicationtowardsatisfactionoftheseclaimsfollowingpaymentof windingupexpensesofadministration.... ` `  @tt)II   ` XHXX XHOurreviewofthisnonjurycaseisdenovouponthe `  recordoftheproceedingsbelow;however,thatrecordcomestouswithapresumptionthatthetrialcourtsfactualfindingsarecorrect.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.Wemusthonorthispresumptionunlesswefindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthosefindings. Id.;UnionCarbideCorp.v.Huddleston ,854S.W.2d87, ( 91(Tenn.1993); OldFarmBakery,Inc.v.MaxwellAssoc. ,872   S.W.2d682,684(Tenn.App.1993).Thetrialcourtsconclusionsoflaw,however,arenotaccordedthesamedeference. Campbell l$   v.FloridaSteelCorp. ,919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996); Presley 8&" v.Bennett ,860S.W.2d857,859(Tenn.1993).# XHXXXHt'#ԀTheissuebefore ($ usisoneoflaw;henceourreviewisdenovowithno )p & presumption.@88)III   ` WeareoftheopinionthatthetrialcourtcorrectlydeterminedthattheUnitedStatesisentitledtoapriorityastothefundsondepositinthetrialcourt,byvirtueoftheFederalInsolvencyStatute,31U.S.C.A.3713.Severalreasonsleadustothisconclusion. :41:    ` InanalyzingXHXX XH3713,  #  5      כtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt `  hasnotedthattheprioritycreatedbythestatuteisbaseduponapublicpolicyrecognizingthenecessityofsecuringanadequaterevenuetoprovideforthepublicwelfare,andthatthestatutehasbeenappliedwiththispurposeinmindforalmost200years. UnitedStatesv.Moore ,423U.S.77,96S.Ct.310,313,# XHXXXH-#46 \  L.Ed.2d219(1975).Likewise,itiswellsettledthatinordertoeffectuateitspurpose,3713istobeconstruedandappliedliberally. Id.;UnitedStatesv.Key ,397U.S.322,90S.Ct.   М1049,1051,25L.Ed.2d340.   ` TheSupremeCourthasobservedthatincasesofinsolvency,XHXX XH3713# XHXXXH0#Ԁexpresslyconfersanabsolutepriorityto P federalclaims,permittingonitsfacenoexceptionstothatpriority. UnitedStatesv.StateofVermont ,377U.S.351,84 ! S.Ct.1267,127071,12L.Ed.2d370(1964).TheSupremeCourthasalsonotedthat  8 ` thecourtshaveappliedtheprioritystatutetoGovernmentclaimsofalltypes....Indeed,underthedecisionsofthisCourt, [o]nlytheplainestinconsistencywouldwarrantourfindinganimpliedexceptiontotheoperationofsoclearacommandasthatof[thepredecessortoXHXX XH3713# XHXXXHV3#].,")` `   Moore ,96S.Ct.at314(quoting UnitedStatesv.Emory ,314U.S. ^/%- 423,62S.Ct.317,32223,86L.Ed.315(1941)).Apartyclaimingexemptionfromoperationofthestatutehastheburden 2v)1 ofshowingthatthepartydoesnotfallwithinitsterms. Bramwellv.UnitedStatesFidelity&GuarantyCo. ,269U.S.483,   46S.Ct.176,177,70L.Ed.368(1926).   ` Furthermore,undertheSupremacyClauseoftheUnitedStatesConstitution,federallawasageneralruleprevailswhenthereisaconflictbetweenstateandfederalstatutes.U.S. (  Const.art.VI; Howardv.UnitedStates ,566S.W.2d521,525 4  (Tenn.1978).   ` TheDepartmentofRevenuearguesthatitsclaimforinheritancetaxesfallsoutsidethescopeof3713(a)(1)(B).Itbasesthisassertiononthetheorythat,becauseinheritancetaxesdonotariseduringadecedentslifetime,butonlyuponϜdeath,suchobligationcannotconstitutea debtofthedebtor, ! asthattermisusedinthestatute.AccordingtotheDepartmentofRevenue,suchtaxliabilityismoreproperlycharacterizedasadebtoftheestate;thus,sotheargumentgoes,itdoesnot &" fallwithintheambitofXHXX XH3713(a)(1)(B)andcannotbedefeated 'p$ byoperationofthatstatute# XHXXXHd9#. |) &    ` Insupportofthiscontention,theDepartmentofRevenuereliesupontheunpublisheddecisionofthisCourtin EstateofGrayv.InternalRevenueService ,C/ANo.03A019507 ,0&. CH00227,1996WL64006(Tenn.App.,E.S.,filedFebruary15,1996,McMurray,J.).In XHXX XHGray # XHXXXH^;#,wefoundthattheFederal 3D*2  %j   InsolvencyStatutewasnotapplicableandheldthatthefederalincometaxclaiminquestiontherewasnotentitledtopriorityoverasurvivingspouseselectiveshare. Id. at*5.Stating 8h/8 that3713 appliesexpresslytoalldebtsofthedebtor, :41: %j   %j    %j   nothingmore,weconcludedthattheelectivesharewasnota debtofthedebtor. XHXX XHId. at*3.# XHXXXHA>#      ` TheDepartmentofRevenuereliesuponthe Gray opinion $ tosupportitscontentionthatitsinheritancetaxclaimdoesnotconstitutea debtofthedebtor.Whileweacknowledgethat XHXX XHGray # XHXXXH?#Ԁdoescontainsomegenerallanguagesuchasthatquoted H  МabovethatarguablysupportstheStatesposition,wedonotbelievethatitcontrolsourdecisionintheinstantcase.Weheldin Gray thatawidowselectivesharewasnotadebtofany l kind,butratherastatutoryentitlement. Id. at*4. 8 Specifically,wefoundtheelectivesharetobe astatutorychargeagainsttheestate[that]isnotavailableasanassetfromwhichunsecureddebtsofanycreditorscanbesatisfied.... XHXX XHId. # XHXXXHYB#ԛThesamecannotbesaidofthestateinheritancetaxclaim h! Мatissuehere.Thatclaimisclearlyadebtoftheestate.Therefore, XHXX XHGray # XHXXXHKC#Ԁdoesnotcontrolourdecisionintheinstant $  case.   ` AftercarefulanalysisofXHXX XH3713(a)(1)(B)# XHXXXHD#,wehave * & concludedthatboththefederalandstatetaxclaimsintheinstantcaseare debtsofthedebtorwithinthemeaningofthestatute.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsliberalconstructionoftheFederalInsolvencyϜStatute infavorofthepriorityoftheclaimsofthefederalgovernment .See,e.g., Moore ,96S.Ct.at31314; Key ,90S.Ct.  4*2 at1051.   ` DecisionsinotherjurisdictionssupportourconclusionϜinthiscase.Forexample,in UnitedStatesv.EstateofYoung , :|1: 592F.Supp.1478(E.D.Pa.1984),theDistrictCourtrejectedthestateofPennsylvaniascontentionsthatfederalestatetaxeswerenotthedecedents debtspriortohisdeath,andthattheFederalInsolvencyStatutethusdidnotmandateprioritytreatmentofafederalestatetaxlienoverthestatesinheritancetaxlien.Insodoing,theDistrictCourtstatedasfollows:  8 ` TheCommonwealthsattempttoimposeanarrowconstructionupon3713mustfail.Asameasuredesignedtoprotectthepublicfisc,XHXX XH3713# XHXXXHHI#Ԁ is l  tobeconstruedliberally.Itspurposeisnottobedefeatedbyunnecessarilyrestrictingtheapplicationoftheword debtswithinanarrowortechnicalmeaning. ` `   EstateofYoung ,592F.Supp.at1484(citing CountyofSpokane, < Washingtonv.UnitedStates ,279U.S.80,93,49S.Ct.321,324, ! 73L.Ed.621(1929)(quoting Pricev.UnitedStates ,269U.S.492, "t 500,46S.Ct.180,181,70L.Ed.373(1926))).The XHXX XHYoung # XHXXXHK#ԀCourt $@  alsonotedthat  8 ` Inthecontextofantecedentstatecreatedliens,theprioritystatuteprovidesthefederalgovernment[with]aparticularlypotentweapon.Againstsuchencumbrances,thefederalclaimisentitledtoprevailunlessthepriorlienorcanmeetatestof choatenessapproachingactualpossessionofthecollateral.... Inclaimsofthistype,specificityrequiresthatthelienbeattachedtocertainpropertybyreducingittopossession,onthetheorythattheUnitedStateshasnoclaimagainstpropertynolongerinthepossessionofthedebtor. ` `   EstateofYoung ,592F.Supp.at148384(quoting UnitedStatesv. N6,5  GilbertAssociates,Inc. ,345U.S.361,366,73S.Ct.701,704, 8.7 97L.Ed.1071(1953)).Circumstancesevidencingsuchspecificityclearlyarenotpresentintheinstantcase.    ` TheissueoftherelativepriorityofafederalestatetaxlienandastateinheritancetaxlienhasalsobeenaddressedbyaNewJerseyappellatecourt.Inthecaseof IntheMatterof \  theEstateofKurth ,449A.2d546(N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1982), (   XTXX XT# XTXXXTlO# theStateofNewJerseymuchliketheDepartmentofRevenueinthiscasecontendedthatthecompetinglienshadattachedsimultaneouslyatthedecedentsdeath;thatthelienssharedequalpriority;thattheFederalInsolvencyStatutedidnotapplybecausethefederalestatetaxwasnotadebtofthedecedentduringhislifetime;andXHXX XHthattheclaimsshouldbesatisfiedona P proratabasis,pursuanttoaNewJerseystatute# XHXXXH6S#.TheCourtin \  Kurth rejectedthestatesposition,however,holdingthat ! federalestatetaxesfallwithintheambitofthestatute,thusgivingtheUnitedStatesprioritywheretheestateisinsufficienttopayitsdebts. Id. at547.TheCourtalsonoted 8&" that31U.S.C.A.191(nowXHXX XH# XHXXXHfU#Ԁ3713(a))mustbereadinpari ($ materiawith31U.S.C.A.XHXX XH192(now# XHXXXHV#XHXX XH# XHXXXHPV#XHXX XHԀ3713(# XHXXXHV#b)),whichspeaksin )\ & termsofdebtsduefromdebtorsaswellasestates.  #  6       t+"(  $[     #j    ̛   ` Weagreewiththeanalysissetforthinthetwocases discussedabove.Accordingly,weholdthatXHXX XH# XHXXXHX#XHXX XHԀ3713# XHXXXHX#Ԁdoesapplyto 0$'. $[   $[   $[     $[     $[    thecompetingclaimsintheinstantcase.    #  7      כTheDepartmentof `   $[    Revenuehasnotdemonstratedthatitsinheritancetaxlienisinsomewayexemptfromoperationofthestatute.Thus,underthecircumstancesofthiscase,applicationofXHXX XH# XHXXXH[#XHXX XHԀ3713# XHXXXH.\#Ԁmandatesthe d prioritydistributionoftheassetsofthisinsolventestatetosatisfyasmuchofthefederaltaxlienaspossible.ThismandatemeansthattheUnitedStatesisentitledtotheentiretyoftheremainingfundsoftheEstate.   ` Inviewofthisconclusion,wedeemitunnecessarytoaddresstheDepartmentofRevenuesargumentthattheUnitedStatesfailedtoprovetheexistenceoftheseparateincometaxcomponentofitsoveralltaxlien.Bythesametoken,weneednotaddresstheUnitedStatescontentionthattheDepartmentofRevenuehaswaivedtherighttochallengetheUnitedStatesclaimofpriorityforitslienforincometaxesbyfailingtomakeanyargumentspecificallyregardingthatclaim.   $    Furthermore,ourconclusionthat3713isapplicabletothefactsofthiscaserendersdiscussionofthepartiesargumentsconcerningthefederallienstatutes,26U.S.C.A.XHXX XH# XHXXXHj`#Ԁ6321,et  X seq.,unnecessaryaswell. p @tt)IV   ` Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant.ThiscaseisremandedtotheϜtrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasarenecessary,consistentwiththisopinion.   `     h     __________________________   `     h     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.