exempt from levy; (4) Living Care Utica’s inability to pay the taxes is the result of extensive government regulation in the field; (5) the IRS wrongly rejected an offer in compromise; (6) the IRS should have accepted Living Care Utica’s plan to maintain the business and sell it as an ongoing concern; (7) the IRS abused its discretion in making a determi nation to sustain the levy and liens; (8) Living Care Utica’s plan to sell the business as an ongoing concern will net more tax revenue; and (9) Living Care Utica contests the underlying tax liability. (Utica J.A. 205-06). As the district court correctly identified, all of the claims presented to it by Living Care Utica, with the exception of the second claim, at l ed States, No. 03-0359, 2003 W L 23311523, *4 (S.D.Ohio Dec.12, 2003) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, as to the second part of Montana’s
holding that the tax was not direct even though the government imposed it on the estate rather than the recipient holding that even if the inability to pay was the result of government regulation it would not excuse the tax liability and that there is no requirement that the united states consider whether it will receive any revenue from the levy holding that sovereign immunity prevents mandamus action to compel state officers to levy a tax to pay bondholders holding that government regulation even extensive regulation and the receipt of federal funds such as medicare medicaid and hillburton funds are insufficient to establish that a hospital or other entity acted under color of state law holding that medicaid and medicare funds are subject to levy and that even if the inability to pay was the result of government regulation it would not excuse the tax liability