Supreme Court Will Decide What Homeowners Are Owed When Tax Sale Erases Equity
⏱ 4 min read
A county in Michigan was owed about $2,200 in back taxes. To collect it, the government took a home worth close to $200,000, auctioned it for a fraction of that, and called the matter settled. The family is now putting a simple question to the Supreme Court: when the state sells your house over a small debt, does it owe you the real worth of what it took or only whatever the auction happened to fetch?
The Rule that is Already on the Books
Three years ago, the court drew a clear line. Geraldine Tyler, then in her 90s, had let a $2,311 levy on a Minneapolis condo balloon to about $15,000 once penalties and interest stacked up. Hennepin County took the unit, found a buyer at $40,000, and held onto all of it. By any fair reckoning, the $25,000 above her debt was Tyler’s money – even though the county walked away with it. Minnesota law blessed that, as did 11 other states and the District of Columbia, plus nine more states under narrower terms.
A unanimous court ended the practice. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that a government can sell property to satisfy a tax debt but cannot help itself to more than the debt is worth. Leftover equity belongs to the owner, and a state cannot dodge that by defining the property interest away.
The Question Tyler Left Hanging
Tyler was tidy because the surplus was undeniable. Subtract a debt near $15,000 from a $40,000 sale, and the leftover is beyond dispute. The justices never had to confront the messier case where the sale price itself is artificially low. If a forced auction brings in far less than a home would fetch on the open market, is that depressed number really the measure of what the owner lost?
That is the gap, and tax auctions are where it opens. Unlike an ordinary listing, these sales draw a thin crowd of investors and speculators, and the government has little reason to chase top dollar. A county could therefore obey Tyler to the letter, hand back every cent of the auction surplus, and still watch most of a family’s equity vanish.
How the Pung Family Got Here
Three-and-a-half decades ago, Timothy Scott Pung paid $125,000 for a roughly 3,000-square-foot house in Isabella County, and for years it carried Michigan’s Principal Residence Exemption. Scott died in 2004, and his wife in 2008. Their son Marc stayed on, assuming the exemption rolled forward without any new filing. The assessor saw it otherwise and stripped the break retroactively. Marc fought back, and a state tax tribunal agreed no further paperwork had ever been required.
The assessor would not let it go. Over a shortfall of $2,241.93, on a place the county itself pegged at $194,400, the family was thrown out, and the home went under the hammer for $76,000. Nobody disputes that the estate is owed the surplus. The quarrel is how to measure it. Isabella County treats the surplus as the hammer price minus the debt, leaving about $74,000. The estate says the yardstick should be the home’s true market value minus the debt, pushing the number toward $194,400. The spread tops $100,000.
Bigger Than One House
The stakes reach far past Michigan. Minnesota alone moved more than 4,300 properties through these sales between 2014 and 2020. Across the 1,200-plus that were family homes, the typical owner lost some 92 percent of the equity above the debt, averaging around $207,000 against bills averaging just $17,000. In the nation’s capital, a veteran with dementia lost a $200,000 home over $133.88.
There is a second front, too. The estate contends the foreclosure worked as an excessive fine barred by the Eighth Amendment, a theory the lower court waved off as ordinary tax collection but one that Justices Gorsuch and Jackson have flagged for review.
Argument wrapped on Feb. 25 with a ruling likely any day now. The court has already said the government cannot keep more than it is owed. Now it must decide whether that shield covers only the cash left after the gavel, or the equity that vanished before.
Supreme Court Will Decide What Homeowners Are Owed When Tax Sale Erases Equity
July 1, 2026 · Blog, Tax and Financial News, Uncategorized
⏱ 4 min read
A county in Michigan was owed about $2,200 in back taxes. To collect it, the government took a home worth close to $200,000, auctioned it for a fraction of that, and called the matter settled. The family is now putting a simple question to the Supreme Court: when the state sells your house over a small debt, does it owe you the real worth of what it took or only whatever the auction happened to fetch?
The Rule that is Already on the Books
Three years ago, the court drew a clear line. Geraldine Tyler, then in her 90s, had let a $2,311 levy on a Minneapolis condo balloon to about $15,000 once penalties and interest stacked up. Hennepin County took the unit, found a buyer at $40,000, and held onto all of it. By any fair reckoning, the $25,000 above her debt was Tyler’s money – even though the county walked away with it. Minnesota law blessed that, as did 11 other states and the District of Columbia, plus nine more states under narrower terms.
A unanimous court ended the practice. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that a government can sell property to satisfy a tax debt but cannot help itself to more than the debt is worth. Leftover equity belongs to the owner, and a state cannot dodge that by defining the property interest away.
The Question Tyler Left Hanging
Tyler was tidy because the surplus was undeniable. Subtract a debt near $15,000 from a $40,000 sale, and the leftover is beyond dispute. The justices never had to confront the messier case where the sale price itself is artificially low. If a forced auction brings in far less than a home would fetch on the open market, is that depressed number really the measure of what the owner lost?
That is the gap, and tax auctions are where it opens. Unlike an ordinary listing, these sales draw a thin crowd of investors and speculators, and the government has little reason to chase top dollar. A county could therefore obey Tyler to the letter, hand back every cent of the auction surplus, and still watch most of a family’s equity vanish.
How the Pung Family Got Here
Three-and-a-half decades ago, Timothy Scott Pung paid $125,000 for a roughly 3,000-square-foot house in Isabella County, and for years it carried Michigan’s Principal Residence Exemption. Scott died in 2004, and his wife in 2008. Their son Marc stayed on, assuming the exemption rolled forward without any new filing. The assessor saw it otherwise and stripped the break retroactively. Marc fought back, and a state tax tribunal agreed no further paperwork had ever been required.
The assessor would not let it go. Over a shortfall of $2,241.93, on a place the county itself pegged at $194,400, the family was thrown out, and the home went under the hammer for $76,000. Nobody disputes that the estate is owed the surplus. The quarrel is how to measure it. Isabella County treats the surplus as the hammer price minus the debt, leaving about $74,000. The estate says the yardstick should be the home’s true market value minus the debt, pushing the number toward $194,400. The spread tops $100,000.
Bigger Than One House
The stakes reach far past Michigan. Minnesota alone moved more than 4,300 properties through these sales between 2014 and 2020. Across the 1,200-plus that were family homes, the typical owner lost some 92 percent of the equity above the debt, averaging around $207,000 against bills averaging just $17,000. In the nation’s capital, a veteran with dementia lost a $200,000 home over $133.88.
There is a second front, too. The estate contends the foreclosure worked as an excessive fine barred by the Eighth Amendment, a theory the lower court waved off as ordinary tax collection but one that Justices Gorsuch and Jackson have flagged for review.
Argument wrapped on Feb. 25 with a ruling likely any day now. The court has already said the government cannot keep more than it is owed. Now it must decide whether that shield covers only the cash left after the gavel, or the equity that vanished before.
Disclaimer
These articles provide general information on tax, accounting, and financial topics for small businesses and individuals. They are educational in nature and are not specific legal, accounting, financial, tax, or other professional advice, and should not be relied upon as such. This content was prepared by Service2Client and may have been reviewed or edited by the website owner for accuracy and compliance. Look for a trust mark below for verification details. No representation is made that any approach described will achieve a particular result, and no regulatory or professional body has reviewed or endorsed this content. Because each situation is different, readers should consult a qualified professional about their specific circumstances before acting. Images accompanying these articles are protected by copyright and may not be copied or reused.
Back in July of 2019, France passed what was dubbed a “digital tax” targeting the largest tech companies. Impacting approximately 30 big companies such as Amazon, Google, Facebook and Apple, the tax applies to revenues earned from digital services of companies that earn more than $830 million in total and at least $27.86 million in France. The tax levy is a 3 percent charge on revenue from digital services.
The United States soon responded with threatening 100 percent tariffs on certain classes of French luxury goods, such as wine, champagne, cheese and makeup. These tariffs were estimated to cover more than $2.4 billion in French goods per year.
Responses on Both Sides
French President Emmanuel Macron came out to comment that the digital tax is not intended to be an anti-American move, and that big tech companies of all stripes could be covered by the tax. The criteria that determines who is subject to the digital tax, however, means that essentially only American companies are the ones being taxed.
Some in the United States claim it’s as simple as jealously over our strong technology sector, while others say that the main motivation for the French tax is a need to mitigate burgeoning budget deficits.
President Trump’s Reaction
Rarely one to back down on international trade issues, President Donald Trump criticized the digital tax for unfairly targeting American tech companies, going so far as to call out the European Union as behaving worse than China in its trading relationship with the United States. He reiterated his stance that he’s willing to fight tariffs with tariffs.
Negotiations with the EU
U.S. and European Union officials are negotiating an agreement over taxing big tech, but that didn’t stop the current treasury secretary from threatening more retaliatory tariffs. Steven Mnuchin, the treasury secretary, recently said that the United States will impose new tariffs on French automobile imports if the issue isn’t resolved to America’s satisfaction. He claimed the digital tax is purely arbitrary, hence his random call for taxing automobiles in response. Moreover, Mnuchin called the tax “discriminatory in nature” at the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland.
Taxes and Tariffs on Hold
For now, France is delaying the implementation of its digital tax through the end of 2020 in response to U.S. pressure on threatened luxury goods and automobile tariffs. They aim to come to a resolution before year-end with the Trump administration. French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire is optimistic an agreement can be worked out and believes entering a trade war with the United States would be foolish.
The Future
Currently, other European countries, including Britain and Italy, are acting against big tech companies they believe don’t pay their fair share of taxes to their countries. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said that the United States is willing to go to bat and protect its companies with retaliatory tariffs in these cases as well. For now, not much is settled – but we should see a clearer direction before the year is out.
A county in Michigan was owed about $2,200 in back taxes. To collect it, the government took a home worth close to $200,000, auctioned it for a fraction of that, and called the matter settled. The family is now putting a simple question to the Supreme Court: when the state sells your house over a small debt, does it owe you the real worth of what it took or only whatever the auction happened to fetch?
