and compelling equitable principles”). The Government’s real argument is that taxpayer has a claim for betterments against Plaintiff. A claim for betterments is a claim demanding payment for permanent improvements over and above the value and use of the land, not a claim of title to land. State v. Taylor, 322 N.C. 433, 368 S.E.2d 601 (1988). This does not rise to the level of a property interest of the taxpayer in this real estate subject to levy by the Government. Moreover, since Maurice Hill did not have color of title at the time he rendered the improvements, he does not have a claim for betterments in any event. Beacon Homes, Inc. v. Holt, 266 N.C. 467, 146 S.E.2d 434 (1966); Hackett v. Hackett, 31 N.C.App. 217, 228 S.E.2d 758, cert. denied, 291 N.C. 448, 230 S.E.2d 765 (1976) (<HOLDING>). The Government also argues that the taxpayer
holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding no irreparable harm and thus no jurisdiction where no existing employeeemployer relationship recognizing that a claim is an assertion of a right and if there is no assertion of a right there is no claim to deduct holding that where improvements are made by a tenant there is no color of title and thus no claim for betterments holding that there is no individual liability under title vii