as tenants hy the entireties under applicable state law 'the Government could not use the money in the account to satisfy the tax obligations of one spouse.’ ” Internal Revenue Serv. v. Gastar, 42 F.3d 787, 791 (3d Cir. 1994) (citing National Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. at 729 n. 11, 105 S.Ct. 2919) (internal footnote omitted; emphasis added). 8 .Nor do Cole and Craft I stand alone. As the Craft I panel noted, this court reiterated the rule of Cole in subsequent cases. See 140 F.3d at 642 (citing United States v. Certain Real Property Located at 2525 Leroy Lane ("Leroy Lane I”), 910 F.2d 343, 351 (6th Cir. 1990)); id. (citing United States v. Certain Real Property Located at 2525 Leroy Lane ("Leroy Lane II"), 972 F.2d 136, 138 (6th Cir. 1992)); see also Gaster, 42 F.3d at 791 n. 3, 793 (<HOLDING>). 9 . As the concurrence acknowledges, the
holding that irs may not levy against bank account of delinquent taxpayer held in tenancy by the entirety where taxpayer did not have unilateral right to withdraw funds holding that the taxpayer met the claim requirement where the taxpayer first filed a timely letter with the irs that requested a refund and subsequently filed a formal refund claim holding that even where taxpayer did not have the financial means to pay all of the taxes owed the taxpayer still willfully evaded tax obligation holding that where bank account titled in the names of two married persons a presumption arises that both hold the funds in the account as a tenancy by the entirety holding that it is well established that a taxpayer has no right to insist upon the same erroneous treatment afforded a similarly situated taxpayer in the past