The levy only serves to protect the government’s interest while any disputes are resolved.The Court of Appeals said that entities claiming an interest in a levied property, such as Fidelity, may file a wrongful levy action, as described in in 26 U.S.C. § 7426. A levy is wrongful if it is made “upon property in which the taxpayer had no interest at the time the lien arose or thereafter.”

Upon Henry's passing, the executor of the estate sold the real and personal property and deposited most of the proceeds in a bank account (the "estate's checking account") that was originally funded by the closing of Henry's bank account, which Henry funded in part by the sale of the stock.A few years after Henry died, the IRS issued levies against funds in the estate's checking account, including cash that Henry received when he sold the stock. The IRS applied the seized funds to Henry's income tax liabilities, and the children filed a wrongful levy claim under 26 U.S.C. § 7426 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.The District Court held that the personal property, real property and proceeds from the mineral interests were property of the children pursuant to the usufruct; therefore, the IRS levy was invalid.

The couple, Tony and Somnuek, were left destitute—everything that they had built since immigrating to the United States and beginning their business in 1983 wiped out before their very eyes.Under 26 U.S.C. § 7433, if any officer or employee of the IRS recklessly or intentionally, or by reason of negligence, disregards any provision or regulation under Title 26 in connection with the collection of federal tax with respect to a taxpayer, such taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages against the United States.Under 26 U.S.C. § 7426, if the IRS wrongfully levied on property or wrongfully sold property pursuant to a levy, any person claiming an interest in such property may bring a civil action against the United States.Predictably, the government responded forcefully to the Complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial. Freeman Law, however, argued that a jury trial was indeed appropriate.