this Court will address each of the IRS arguments in turn. 1. Marshaling as Applied to the United States The IRS contends that the doctrine of marshaling, as a matter of law, cannot be applied to the United States. This Court does not believe that application of a per se rule of such breadth is warranted. The IRS cites to five cases outside of this Circuit as authority for its assertion that the United States is immune to the marshaling doctrine: United States v. Herman, 310 F.2d 846, 848 (2nd Cir.1962)(stating that the Court would not “subject the government to a requirement that it marshall [sic] assets in favor of junior lienors, as this would create an extreme burden on the collection of revenue, unauthorized by statute.”); In re Ackerman II, 424 F.2d 1148, 1150 (9th Cir.1970)(<HOLDING>); United States v. Eshelman, 663 F.Supp. 285,
holding that the united states court of federal claims does not have jurisdiction to enter declaratory judgment that taxpayers were not liable for any type of federal income tax or to issue injunction permanently removing the tax liens on property and levies on wages recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states holding that interest received by a foreign corporation on a tax refund from the united states was interest on an interestbearing obligation of a resident of the united states within income tax statute holding that a junior lienor cannot invoke the marshaling doctrine to prevent the united states from enforcing tax liens against property as to do so would create a substantial burden unauthorized by statute upon the collection of federal revenue holding that sovereign immunity does not bar extinguishment of united states junior lien in proceeding in which united states was not a party