Article (emphasis added). Section 322(4) of Article 81 expressly permitted the use of a writ of execution to enforce a tax lien. In enacting § 13-810, the General Assembly intended to continue the prior practice for enforcing State tax liens provided in Article 81, § 322(4). Moreover, this holding comports with the general principle that we will construe the tax laws so as to provide the Comptroller with alternative methods for collecting taxes. See Lomax v. Comptroller, 323 Md. 419, 424, 593 A.2d 1099, 1102 (1991) (“It is the policy of the law to insure the collection of all taxes, and whenever it is possible on any theory to do so the courts will construe the statutes to accomplish that result.”); Surratts Assoc. v. Prince Geo’s Co., 286 Md. 555, 566, 408 A.2d 1323, 1329 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Construing § 13-810 to permit the issuance of
holding that an appeal by taxpayers in a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the government from collecting income tax deficiencies was mooted because the taxpayers had paid the deficiencies pending the appeal holding to read words and concepts into our statutes that the general assembly did not write shows disrespect both for the general assembly and the common law which the legislature has the power expressly to displace holding that  362 did not prevent the irs from collecting a postpetition debt by levying upon property of the debt or holding that it was not the taxpayers responsibility to pursue the different tax units to which the illegally levied county tax was proportioned as the taxpayer was entitled to recover the full amount of the tax from the county the collecting entity holding that the general assembly intended to provide the tax collecting authorities with alternative methods for collecting taxes