Goodrich v. United States
| Decision Date | 06 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-30422,20-30422 |
| Citation | 3 F.4th 776 |
| Parties | Walter G. GOODRICH, in his capacity as the Independent Executor on behalf of Henry Goodrich Succession; Walter G. Goodrich; Henry Goodrich, Jr.; Laura Goodrich Watts, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Scott C. Sinclair, Sinclair Law Firm, L.L.C., Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiffs—Appellants.
Anthony T. Sheehan, Bruce Raleigh Ellisen, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Defendant—Appellee.
Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Walter G. "Gil" Goodrich (individually and in his capacity as the executor of his father—Henry Goodrich, Sr.’s—succession), Henry Goodrich, Jr., and Laura Goodrich Watts brought suit against Defendant-Appellee United States of America. Henry Jr. and Laura are also Henry Sr.’s children. Plaintiffs claimed that, in an effort to discharge Henry Sr.’s tax liability, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") has wrongfully levied their property, which they had inherited from their deceased mother, Tonia Goodrich, subject to Henry Sr.’s usufruct. Among other holdings not relevant to the disposition of this appeal, the magistrate judge1 determined that Plaintiffs were not the owners of money seized by the IRS and that represented the value of certain liquidated securities. This appeal followed.
Whether Plaintiffs are in fact owners of the disputed funds is an issue governed by Louisiana law. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Louisiana Supreme Court should have the chance to resolve this issue in the first instance.
Henry Sr. and Tonia, Louisiana residents, owned community property during their marriage, including personal property, oil-and-gas rights, and shares of stock and stock options in Goodrich Petroleum Corporation (the "Goodrich securities"). Tonia died in 2006. Her succession, which was completed in 2015, left her interest in some of the community property, including the Goodrich securities, to her children subject to Henry Sr.’s usufruct. During his life, Henry Sr. sold $857,914 worth of the Goodrich securities. One half of that amount—$428,957—belonged to Henry Sr. given his community interest in the property, while the other half was attributable to Plaintiffs’ naked ownership subject to Henry Sr.’s usufruct. At issue on appeal is Plaintiffs’ claim to their share of those proceeds.
Henry Sr. died in March 2014 having failed to pay $38,029 in assessed income tax for that year, in addition to $312,078 for 2013 and $214,806 for 2012. A month after Henry Sr. passed away, his executor, Gil, opened a succession checking account.2 Notwithstanding the money placed in the savings account, "[a]ll estate funds and expenses have passed through [the checking] account." In April 2017, the IRS placed a levy on the checking account in order to collect Henry Sr.’s unpaid taxes. In May 2017, the bank remitted all of the remaining funds within the checking account—$239,927—to the IRS. The IRS applied that amount to Henry Sr.’s 2012 tax liability, which also included penalties and interest and totaled $238,922 as of the date Henry Sr. passed away. There remains a combined outstanding balance of $471,818 on Henry Sr.’s 2013 and 2014 tax liability.
The same month that the bank remitted the $239,927 payment to the IRS, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit claiming under I.R.C. § 7426(a)(1)3 that the agency had wrongfully levied those funds. Relevant to this appeal, the operative complaint alleged that the IRS had taken money that in actuality belonged to Plaintiffs as owners of nearly half-a-million dollars’ worth of liquidated Goodrich securities. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. As part of their motion, Plaintiffs attached a final accounting of Henry Sr.’s succession, which indicated that all of the cash remaining in the succession was needed to satisfy Plaintiffs’ property claims against it.
Without considering whether he had subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiffs’ claim, the magistrate judge partly granted and denied the Government's and Plaintiffs’ motions and issued a final judgment. More specifically, the magistrate judge ordered the IRS to return $86,774, which represented Plaintiffs’ share of proceeds from the sale of personal property and oil-and-gas revenues that had been deposited into the succession checking account. The magistrate judge, however, held that Plaintiffs were not entitled to any funds attributable to their portion of the liquidated Goodrich securities. Relying on a Louisiana appellate court decision and the Louisiana Civil Law Treatise , he reasoned that the IRS's claim to that money took priority over that of Plaintiffs since they were "unsecured creditors" of Henry Sr.’s succession.
Plaintiffs timely appealed, contending that they are owed the remaining amount levied from the succession checking account, i.e., $153,153, since it reflects (at least some of) their share of the liquidated Goodrich securities.
"Jurisdiction cannot be waived, and it is the duty of a federal court first to decide, sua sponte if necessary, whether it has jurisdiction before the merits of the case can be addressed." Filer v. Donley , 690 F.3d 643, 646 (5th Cir. 2012). "When courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over a case, they lack the power to adjudicate the case" and must dismiss it. Nat'l Football League Players Ass'n v. Nat'l Football League , 874 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 2017). "Questions of subject-matter jurisdiction are reviewed de novo." Zimmerman v. City of Austin , 969 F.3d 564, 567 (5th Cir. 2020).
When an individual neglects or refuses to pay his or her taxes, a lien arises on "all property and rights to property" belonging to that person once the IRS assesses the tax liability. I.R.C. §§ 6321 –22. The IRS may then collect the unpaid taxes through placing an administrative levy on the property. I.R.C. § 6331(a). Congress, however, has afforded third parties such as Plaintiffs the right to challenge the IRS's levy when they have an "interest" in the property. See § 7426(a)(1). In a suit for wrongful levy, the plaintiff cannot challenge the tax assessment itself, but rather the IRS's ability to collect the tax. Myers v. United States , 647 F.2d 591, 603 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981). "[T]o establish a wrongful levy claim a plaintiff must show (1) that the IRS filed a levy with respect to a taxpayer's liability against property held by the non-taxpayer plaintiff, (2) the plaintiff had an interest in that property superior to that of the IRS and (3) the levy was wrongful." Oxford Cap. Corp. v. United States , 211 F.3d 280, 283 (5th Cir. 2000). The last element requires the plaintiff to demonstrate "some interest in the property to establish standing." Id.
The Fifth Circuit has yet to clarify whether the standing requirement is jurisdictional or what satisfies this standard. As to the former, the parties’ appellate briefing does not provide the court any guidance, having assumed (like the magistrate judge) that the standing requirement is a merits issue.4 The question here is whether Plaintiffs have an interest in the levied funds sufficient for a court to conclude that their claim falls within the scope of § 7426(a)(1). See § 7426(a)(1). Since that inquiry requires interpretation of a statute, it would seem to go to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claim. But § 7426(a)(1) operates as a waiver of the United States's sovereign immunity from suit, Oxford , 211 F.3d at 283, and "[s]overeign immunity is jurisdictional," Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Par. Council--President Gov't , 279 F.3d 273, 280 (5th Cir. 2002). Thus, if Plaintiffs lack standing for their wrongful levy claim, then sovereign immunity applies, see McGinness v. U.S., I.R.S. , 90 F.3d 143, 145 (6th Cir. 1996) (); Arford v. United States , 934 F.2d 229, 232 (9th Cir. 1991) (same), and the magistrate judge lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim, see Bodin v. Vagshenian , 462 F.3d 481, 484 (5th Cir. 2006) ().5
With respect to what qualifies as an "interest" in property for the purposes of § 7426(a)(1), other circuits have held that "the right of a third party to challenge a wrongful levy is confined to persons who have a fee simple or equivalent interest, a possessory interest, or a security interest in the property levied upon." Austin & Laurato, P.A. v. United States , 539 F. App'x 957, 960 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (); Allied/Royal Parking L.P. v. United States , 166 F.3d 1000, 1005 (9th Cir. 1999) (same). The Frierdich court explained that its standard is grounded in a contextual reading of § 7426(a)(1) ; for, "[w]hen [the terms] interest and lien are conjoined, the inference arises that the legislature was referring to ownership or its near equivalents[.]" 985 F.2d at 381. It added that unsecured creditors cannot sue for wrongful levy. Id . at 383. "To hold otherwise," as another decision upon which Frierdich relied observed, "would invite litigation from numerous parties only remotely aggrieved by IRS levies, with consequent disruptive effects on federal tax enforcement." Valley Fin., Inc. v. United States , 629 F.2d 162, 168 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ; see Frierdich , 985 F.2d at 381–83. We adopt Frierdich ’s definition of "interest" as used in § 7426(a)(1).
The dispositive question here is whether Plaintiffs have demonstrated the requisite interest in the disputed funds. Indeed, Plaintiffs acknowledge...
To continue reading
Request your trial