Bolme v. Nixon
Decision Date | 01 April 1965 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 26128. |
Citation | 239 F. Supp. 907 |
Parties | Thomas P. BOLME and Joseph La Rocca, Plaintiffs, v. Raphael I. NIXON, District Director of Internal Revenue, Detroit, Michigan, and United States of America, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Arthur M. Hoffeins, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs.
Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Fred B. Ugast, John W. Johnson, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Lawrence Gubow, U. S. Atty., Robert F. Ritzenhein, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for defendants.
This is a suit to enjoin Raphael I. Nixon, District Director of Internal Revenue, from making any levy, seizure or distraint under the purported authority of a certain deficiency assessment of withholding and social security taxes for the fiscal year 1960 against a corporation of which plaintiffs were officers and directors. An involuntary petition in bankruptcy was filed against the corporation in December of 1960, and on July 15, 1964, the Internal Revenue Service assessed an amount of $2022.96 against plaintiffs pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6672 as the amount due from the corporation for withholding and social security taxes for the last quarter of 1960.
The complaint alleges that, contrary to the express provisions of sections 6212 and 6213 of the Internal Revenue Code, the I.R.S. did not, prior to assessing said amount against plaintiffs, first send to plaintiffs a notice of deficiency with respect to the tax liability imposed, advising them that if they were not satisfied with the deficiency assessment, an appeal could be taken to the Tax Court, and that the assessment is, therefore illegal and void. Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against attempts by the I.R.S. to collect on the allegedly void assessment and request that such assessment be expunged.
The case is now before the court on a motion for preliminary injunction pending trial, and also on defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.
Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is based on the grounds that (1) the assessment is void for failure to send notice of the claimed deficiency, and (2) that plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if, pending trial, defendant levies upon their property and distrains their wages.
Defendant moves to dismiss for the reasons that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, suits to declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party may not be brought in any court of the United States with respect to federal taxes, and also that section 7421 of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits all suits for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax. Defendant also contends that the suit is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Since this is a suit for a permanent injunction, defendant's objection that 28 U.S.C. § 2201, the declaratory judgment statute, forbids the suit, is not persuasive. Ruby v. Mayer, 194 F.Supp. 594 (D.C.N.J.1961). Further, defendant's contention that the suit is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity is also without merit in view of the express provision of section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, authorizing such a suit in proper cases.
The statutory scheme which concerns this case is as follows:
Section 7421(a), Internal Revenue Code, provides:
"Except as provided in sections 6212(a) and (c), and 6213(a), no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court."
Section 6212(a), I.R.C., in pertinent part, provides:
"If the Secretary or his delegate determines that there is a deficiency in respect of any tax imposed by subtitles A or B, he is authorized to send notice of such deficiency to the taxpayer by certified mail or registered mail."
Section 6213(a), I.R.C., in pertinent part, provides:
Section 6672, I.R.C., insofar as relevant, provides:
"Any person required to collect, truthfully account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect such tax, or truthfully account for and pay over such tax, or willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any such tax or the payment thereof, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be liable to a penalty equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collected, or not accounted for and paid over."
Section 7501, I.R.C., provides:
It is clear that section 7421 forbids plaintiffs' suit for an injunction unless the deficiency assessment is in respect to a tax imposed by subtitle A or B of the Internal Revenue Code, in which case plaintiffs' suit is authorized by section 6213(a). Plaintiffs contend that section 7501 requires that the deficiency assessment be treated as a tax imposed by subtitle A, but cite no authority in support of this contention.
100% penalty assessments are civil in nature and constitute taxes as distinguished from penalties. McAllister v. Dudley, 148 F.Supp. 548 (W.D.Pa. 1956); Headley v. Knox, 133 F.Supp. 36 (D.C.Minn.1955).
In Botta v. Scanlon, 314 F.2d 392 (CA 2, 1963), the Court held that a 100% penalty assessment under section 6672 does not come within the exceptions to the statutory prohibition of section 7421 (a). The court stated at page 393:
Subtitles A and B of the Internal Revenue Code cover only income, estate and gift taxes. Social Security taxes are clearly imposed by chapter 21 of subtitle C of the Code, and withholding taxes are the subject of chapter 24 of subtitle C. Plaintiffs contend that withholding taxes are nevertheless "imposed" under subtitle A of the Code as income taxes. The primary issue before the court, therefore, is whether withholding taxes can be said to be "imposed"...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jacobson v. ORGANIZED CRIME & RACK. SEC., USD OF J.
...Act which refer to the assessment of income and estate taxes imposed by Subtitles A and B of the Code. See Bolme v. Nixon, 239 F.Supp. 907, 910 (E.D.Mich.1965); Lipsig v. United States, 187 F.Supp. 826, 828 (E.D.N.Y.1960). Unless plaintiffs can take advantage of the judicial exception of En......
-
Lukens v. Goit
...result in severe penalties, and an employee is absolved from payment even though an employer fails to remit as required. Bolme v. Nixon, D.C.Mich., 239 F.Supp. 907, 911. The liability is imposed on the employer by virtue of the law and not by contractual arrangements between the parties, Un......
-
Scott v. US, Civ. A. No. 87-B-1733.
...fund, be subject to a 100% penalty assessment if he fails to deliver the fund to the United States as beneficiary." Bolme v. Nixon, 239 F.Supp. 907, 911 (E.D.Mich.1965). "Absent stringent measures to protect these funds, they might easily be available to finance a business which was in a ha......