Carelli v. I. R. S., No. 80-1028
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before WEICK and JONES, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS; PHILLIPS |
| Citation | 668 F.2d 902 |
| Decision Date | 12 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1028 |
| Parties | 82-1 USTC P 9131 Frank CARELLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee. |
Page 902
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.
Sixth Circuit.
Decided Jan. 12, 1982.
Page 903
Wayne A. Smith, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant.
James K. Robinson, U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., M. Carr Ferguson, Gilbert E. Andrews, Michael L. Paup, Carleton D. Powell, Stanley S. Shaw, Jr., Tax Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellee.
Before WEICK and JONES, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment by District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's complaint. We affirm on the ground that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the action.
Upon joint motion of the parties, this appeal has been submitted on briefs without oral argument.
The appellant brings this action to recover amounts allegedly due to him for furnishing information to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) relating to violations of the internal revenue laws. His claim is founded primarily upon 26 U.S.C. § 7623 and the accompanying Treasury Regulation, 26 C.F.R. § 301.7623-1, which provide for the payment of rewards to informants who supply information that leads to the detection and punishment of persons guilty of violating any internal revenue law. As a basis for jurisdiction and venue, appellant relies upon 28 U.S.C. § 1340, which provides that "(t)he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress providing for internal revenue...."
Apparently, beginning sometime in the late 1940's or early 1950's, the appellant provided information to IRS authorities. There is evidence that he received some compensation for supplying information in 1960, and that he was commended for his efforts in 1957. Appellant claims that "he was highly valuable for such purpose," because of his experience in international finance. Specifically, he claims to have supplied valuable information concerning the activities of one George Goulandris. Appellant contends that "in 1956, or thereabouts," a representative of the Treasury Department, Frank T. Smith, in Paris, France, promised to pay the appellant a reward if the investigation of Goulandris resulted in a recovery of tax revenues.
Appellant also asserts that he provided information about tax evasion by at least eleven other persons or entities, and the information resulted, or should have resulted, in the collection of over $2 million in additional federal taxes. He claims that he filed a claim for a reward in 1956 and again in 1978 and corresponded frequently with the Treasury Department from 1976 to 1978 through a former Treasury Agent named Athanasius Christides, but no accounting of the monies collected has been given to him and no explanation has been provided. His claim for a reward was denied without comment on September 12, 1978.
Page 904
Although the appellant named the IRS as defendant in his complaint, we treat this action as a suit against the United States. See Hawaii v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vogelaar v. US, No. 86-CV-10315-BC.
...except for situations in which it consents to be sued by expressly waiving its sovereign immunity. Carelli v. Internal Revenue Service, 668 F.2d 902, 904 (6th Cir.1982). There must be an independent basis for a waiver of the government's sovereign immunity other than jurisdictional statutes......
-
Hayes v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, No. 82 Civ. 0767 (WK).
...§ 1331 do not operate—in and of themselves —as waivers of sovereign immunity. See Carelli v. Internal Revenue Service (6th Cir.1982) 668 F.2d 902, 904; Doe v. Civiletti, supra, 635 F.2d at 94. The plaintiff, therefore, must look beyond the jurisdictional provision—to the statute which suppl......
-
Bryan v. Stevens, No. CIV. A. H-00-4411.
...1811, 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983); Ecclesiastical Order of the Ism of Am., Inc. v. Chasin, 845 F.2d 113, 115-16 (6th Cir.1988); Carelli v. IRS, 668 F.2d 902, 904 (6th Cir.1982). Sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional bar to such actions unless the United States waives immunity and consents to sui......
-
Lonsdale v. U.S., No. 90-2113
...884 F.2d 1, 3-4 (1st Cir.1989); Estate of Watson v. Blumenthal, 586 F.2d 925, 932 (2d Cir.1978); Carelli v. Internal Revenue Service, 668 F.2d 902, 904 (6th Cir.1982). Rather, the taxpayer must find an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity. Section 2463 of Title 28, which provides that prop......
-
Vogelaar v. US, No. 86-CV-10315-BC.
...except for situations in which it consents to be sued by expressly waiving its sovereign immunity. Carelli v. Internal Revenue Service, 668 F.2d 902, 904 (6th Cir.1982). There must be an independent basis for a waiver of the government's sovereign immunity other than jurisdictional statutes......
-
Martin v. Colvin, NO. 3:14-0209
...in this action, and neither provision acts as a waiver of the United State's sovereign immunity. See Carelli v. Internal Revenue Serv., 668 F.2d 902, 904 (6th Cir. 1982); Murray v. United States, 686 F.2d 1320, 1324 (8th Cir. 1982). 28 U.S.C. § 1391 is a venue statute and does nor confer ju......
-
Bryan v. Stevens, No. CIV. A. H-00-4411.
...1811, 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983); Ecclesiastical Order of the Ism of Am., Inc. v. Chasin, 845 F.2d 113, 115-16 (6th Cir.1988); Carelli v. IRS, 668 F.2d 902, 904 (6th Cir.1982). Sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional bar to such actions unless the United States waives immunity and consents to sui......
-
Hayes v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, No. 82 Civ. 0767 (WK).
...§ 1331 do not operate—in and of themselves —as waivers of sovereign immunity. See Carelli v. Internal Revenue Service (6th Cir.1982) 668 F.2d 902, 904; Doe v. Civiletti, supra, 635 F.2d at 94. The plaintiff, therefore, must look beyond the jurisdictional provision—to the statute which suppl......