3rd Circuit Reverses Itself on TP Suit

[Famspear]

Steve, let's suppose that the IRS just never issues a statutory notice of deficiency. In other words, the mean ol', bad ol', evil IRS never gives the taxpayer the opportunity to litigate the validity of the income tax deficiency itself in the Tax Court. The IRS just blatantly and wrongfully assesses the tax (not even a jeopardy assessment or anything, just a regular assessment) without going through proper procedures at all. The IRS then wrongfully claims that there is a valid tax lien, and attempts to seize the taxpayer's property by administrative levy (a seizure without going to court). Under these circumstances, the assessment would be premature, and the tax lien would be legally non-existent.

AND, under these circumstances, 26 USC 6213(a) provides (in part):

[ . . . ]no assessment of a deficiency [ . . . ] and no levy or proceeding in court for its collection shall be made, begun, or prosecuted [i.e., by the IRS, etc.] until such notice [referring to the statutory notice of deficiency, or 90 day letter, that gives the taxpayer 90 days to file a Tax Court petition] has been mailed to the taxpayer, nor until the expiration of such 90-day or 150-day period, as the case may be, nor, if a petition has been filed with the Tax Court, until the decision of the Tax Court has become final [and here, where the Tax Court rules against the taxpayer, "final" essentially means after judicial appeals have been exhausted];

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7421(a), the making of such assessment or the beginning of such proceeding or levy during the time such prohibition is in force may be enjoined [i.e., may be ordered stopped] by a proceeding [i.e., filed by the taxpayer] in the proper court, including the Tax Court, and a refund may be ordered by such court of any amount collected within the period during which the Secretary [i.e., during which the IRS] is prohibited from collecting [ . . . ].

This would be an example of how the law treats the situation where the IRS just didn't follow the rules, so that the putative "lien" would be invalid. Here, the taxpayer can indeed go to court and obtain a determination AFTER the date of "creation" of the invalid "lien."

[Imalawman]

All of Sybil's beliefs are just that, beliefs, without any basis in law or fact. You might has well argue with him about the virgin birth.

Let me add that trying to explain anything to Sybil is a complete waste of time because he doesn't want to hear what you have to say, he doesn't understand what you say, and he'll forget it all within a few hours anyway. He's basically nothing but a retarded narcissist with Korsakoff's syndrome.

Of all the blowhards we've had on here, its seems like Stevie pisses you off more than most. I always enjoy your banter (and total repudiation of his assertions).

[Famspear]

Getting back to Steve's comments, Dr. Caligari has written:

[ . . . ] a tax lien can be invalid for 3 reasons: (1) the taxpayer doesn't owe the tax; (2) the taxpayer didn't get proper notice of the alleged tax deficiency; and (3) the lien is placed on property of someone other than the taxpayer who owes the tax.

In the first case, as Dan pointed out, the taxpayer has already received several opportunities to litigate that tax liability before the lien can be filed. In cases (2) and (3), I believe there are judicial remedies available under the Code.

On items 2 and 3, the Quatloos regulars have now described the various statutes that provide for judicial remedies -- where the aggrieved party can essentially block a proposed IRS levy in connection with an invalid "lien" and can obtain a court ruling on the invalid "lien" without having to first pay the alleged "tax."

On item 1, the issue of whether the IRS owes the "tax" can (as previously noted) be litigated in the Tax Court without the taxpayer having to first pay the alleged "tax" and, if the taxpayer files a timely Tax Court petition, the lien cannot even come into existence until the taxpayer's judicial remedy is exhausted. When the IRS loses in Tax Court, the IRS is bound by the court's ruling.

So, Steve, what's your problem?

[SteveSy]

Getting back to Steve's comments, Dr. Caligari has written:

[ . . . ] a tax lien can be invalid for 3 reasons: (1) the taxpayer doesn't owe the tax; (2) the taxpayer didn't get proper notice of the alleged tax deficiency; and (3) the lien is placed on property of someone other than the taxpayer who owes the tax.

In the first case, as Dan pointed out, the taxpayer has already received several opportunities to litigate that tax liability before the lien can be filed. In cases (2) and (3), I believe there are judicial remedies available under the Code.

On items 2 and 3, the Quatloos regulars have now described the various statutes that provide for judicial remedies -- where the aggrieved party can essentially block a proposed IRS levy in connection with an invalid "lien" and can obtain a court ruling on the invalid "lien" without having to first pay the alleged "tax."

On item 1, the issue of whether the IRS owes the "tax" can (as previously noted) be litigated in the Tax Court without the taxpayer having to first pay the alleged "tax" and, if the taxpayer files a timely Tax Court petition, the lien cannot even come into existence until the taxpayer's judicial remedy is exhausted. When the IRS loses in Tax Court, the IRS is bound by the court's ruling.

So, Steve, what's your problem?

So it's not a blanket claim of sovereign immunity. There is recourse if the IRS fails to follow the rules. You answered my question.

To LPC: Grow up....you act so damn immature. You must be looking in the mirror claiming someone is narcissistic. I've never seen someone so full of themselves.

[SteveSy]

All of Sybil's beliefs are just that, beliefs, without any basis in law or fact. You might has well argue with him about the virgin birth.

Let me add that trying to explain anything to Sybil is a complete waste of time because he doesn't want to hear what you have to say, he doesn't understand what you say, and he'll forget it all within a few hours anyway. He's basically nothing but a retarded narcissist with Korsakoff's syndrome.

Of all the blowhards we've had on here, its seems like Stevie pisses you off more than most. I always enjoy your banter (and total repudiation of his assertions).

"repudiation of his assertions"...lol I asked a question based on what I saw and the conclusion I drew from it. Dan enjoys puffing himself up and calling people names probably due to being picked on when he was a kid. He seems to think it makes him look intelligent when all it really does is make him look like an ass with a severe case of egomania or in other words a narcissistic personality disorder.

[Famspear]

Steve, here is part of your original rant:

So there is no way to sue the government to remove a tax lien? That's what it looks like.
Forget the fact that the lien may or may not be valid, assume it is, it's irrelevant to my question.

It seems if I understand it correctly the government could commit a wrong to an individual, continue to commit that wrong and the individual has no recourse.

You see, the court in the case you cited never said that there is no way to sue the government to remove a tax lien. The court never said that an individual has no recourse. You jumped to conclusions and went off on an emotional tangent. Ask yourself why you did that, Steve.

Now, after having had the whole thing explained to you, you have written:

So it's not a blanket claim of sovereign immunity. There is recourse if the IRS fails to follow the rules. You answered my question.

Thanks. Now you understand.

Yes, there is federal sovereign immunity, but the U.S. government does not make a "blanket" claim of sovereign immunity in the case of federal taxes. Indeed, if there were absolute, blanket sovereign immunity regarding taxes, you would not even be able to maintain a lawsuit for a tax refund.

[SteveSy]

Steve, here is part of your original rant:

So there is no way to sue the government to remove a tax lien? That's what it looks like.
Forget the fact that the lien may or may not be valid, assume it is, it's irrelevant to my question.

It seems if I understand it correctly the government could commit a wrong to an individual, continue to commit that wrong and the individual has no recourse.

It wasn't a "rant" it was clearly a question, that's what the "?" denotes. It's also obvious I was unsure as to what I was reading. That's what "if I understand it correctly" meant. Hope I cleared that up for you.

You see, the court in the case you cited never said that there is no way to sue the government to remove a tax lien. The court never said that an individual has no recourse. You jumped to conclusions and went off on an emotional tangent. Ask yourself why you did that, Steve.

Emotional tangent? Golly gee Wally.

I didn't do any such thing so I don't need to ask myself anything.

Now, after having had the whole thing explained to you, you have written:

So it's not a blanket claim of sovereign immunity. There is recourse if the IRS fails to follow the rules. You answered my question.

Thanks. Now you understand.

Yes, there is federal sovereign immunity, but the U.S. government does not make a "blanket" claim of sovereign immunity in the case of federal taxes. Indeed, if there were absolute, blanket sovereign immunity regarding taxes, you would not even be able to maintain a lawsuit for a tax refund.

I assumed you would have kept with the topic and not included things outside the topic. The topic was sovereign immunity concerning a tax lien. I made no indication that I was including things outside the scope of the topic such as a "tax refund".

Again, thanks for the assistance....

[Famspear]

Steve, you're welcome.

On the tax refund thing, you yourself made the reference to what you called "blanket" sovereign immunity. Since a bar on tax refund suits is within the topic of a "blanket" sovereign immunity, a bar on tax refund suits is within the scope of what you were talking about. The purpose of my comment was to illustrate that if the Congress really wanted to make things hard on taxpayers, things could be a lot worse than just having to worry about whether the taxpayer can challenge an asserted tax lien.

[LPC]

You see, the court in the case you cited never said that there is no way to sue the government to remove a tax lien. The court never said that an individual has no recourse. You jumped to conclusions and went off on an emotional tangent. Ask yourself why you did that, Steve.

Emotional tangent? Golly gee Wally.

I didn't do any such thing so I don't need to ask myself anything.

People sometimes ask me, "Dan, why are you so hard on that a**hole, Steve," and I think that the above says it all.

What bothers me about RNKS is not that he is an idiot, or even that he is an obstinate idiot, but that he is an arrogant, obnoxious, insensate, obstinate idiot.

(I have often liked the label "Sybil" to describe his personality disorders, but in the future I will be referring to him as the "Retarded Narcissist with Korsakoff's Syndrome," or RNKS for short.)