Crouch v. CIR, C 77-1462 CFP.
| Decision Date | 20 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. C 77-1462 CFP.,C 77-1462 CFP. |
| Citation | 447 F. Supp. 385 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | Holmes F. CROUCH, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Defendant. |
Holmes F. Crouch, in pro per.
Judith H. Johnson, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., John M. Youngquist, Chief Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Crouch, a self-employed income tax preparer, sued to enjoin the Internal Revenue Service from enforcing 26 U.S.C. § 6695(c), part of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, which assesses a $25 penalty against income tax preparers who fail to include their Social Security number on returns prepared for others. Plaintiff argues that such compelled disclosure of his Social Security number violates his privacy interests which are protected by the Privacy Act of 1974 and by the Constitution. He asserts that any interest the government has in its administration of the tax laws or in identifying him is fully satisfied by his furnishing of his Internal Revenue Service enrollment number, which was all that was required before § 6695(c) was added to the Code.
The government has moved to dismiss the action on the ground that it is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). That statute provides in relevant part that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court." The principal issue presented by this motion is whether the penalty imposed by § 6695(c) is a tax within the meaning of the Anti-Injunction Act. It is clear that some penalties are considered taxes. For example, penalties assessed for failure to pay taxes are considered taxes. Shaw v. United States, 331 F.2d 493 (9th Cir. 1964). The penalty in this case is quite different, however. This penalty is against the tax preparer, not the taxpayer, and the penalty is imposed for the failure to supply a Social Security number, not the failure to pay a tax. Nonetheless, although there are no cases on this precise point, the Court is persuaded by another section of the Code that the penalty imposed by § 6695(c) is a tax within the meaning of the Anti-Injunction Act, and that therefore this action is barred.
Section 6671 of Title 26, entitled "Rules for application of assessable penalties," provides:
The penalty section in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
STATE OF CAL. BY & THROUGH YOUNGER v. Blumenthal
...2201-2202, Fed.R.Civ.P. 57; Pacific Indemnity Co. v. McDonald, 107 F.2d 446, 448 (9th Cir. 1939). The Court is aware of Crouch v. C. I. R., 447 F.Supp. 385 (N.D.Cal.1978), where the plaintiff tax preparer sought relief against compelled disclosure of his Social Security number on the ground......
-
National Feder. of Republican Assemblies v. U.S., CIV.A. 00-0759-RV-C.
...that, for purposes of assessment collection, penalties under chapter 68 are to be treated like taxes."); Crouch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 447 F.Supp. 385, 386 (N.D.Cal.1978) ("The clear Congressional intent evidenced in § 6671 appears to be to treat all penalties imposed by Subch......
-
Seven-Sky v. Holder
...United States, 625 F.Supp. 920, 921 (D.Colo.1986); Griffith v. Commissioner, 598 F.Supp. 405, 406 (N.D.Ohio 1983); Crouch v. Commissioner, 447 F.Supp. 385, 386 (N.D.Cal.1978); McAllister v. Dudley, 148 F.Supp. 548, 550–51 (W.D.Pa.1956). A leading treatise similarly states: “[B]ecause § 6671......
-
O'BRIEN v. Evans
...assessed against tax preparers who fail to include their Social Security numbers on returns prepared for others. Crouch v. C.I.R., 447 F.Supp. 385, 386 (N.D.Cal.1978) (Anti-Injunction Act bars suit enjoin the assessment of penalty pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6695(c)); accord, Powell v. Kopman, ......