fails because the Rodgers Court did not mandate application of the four-factor balanc ing test before a district court could order a sale under § 7403. To the contrary, the Rodgers Court established the balancing test as a requirement only after the district court first determines that a § 7403 sale would cause undue hardship to an innocent third-party; before exercising its limited discretion not to order the sale, a district court must justify that decision by means of the Rodgers balancing test. This conclusion is supported by the Rodgers Court’s declaration that the Government has a “paramount interest” in collecting taxes, 461 U.S. at 711, 103 S.Ct. 2132, and follows established precedent in the Seventh Circuit, United States v. Davenport, 106 F.3d 1333, 1338 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Even if the Rodgers Court had intended to
holding that a finding of plaintiffs bad faith is not a prerequisite to the trial courts exercise of discretion to award fees holding that a properly filed motion to reopen is a prerequisite to the filing of a new asylum application when the petitioner is under a final removal order holding that application of the rodgers factors is not a prerequisite to a district courts power to decree a sale under  7403 recognizing that injury is a prerequisite to liability holding that a coa is a jurisdictional prerequisite