Hansen v. United States, 78-4069-CV-C.
Decision Date | 19 September 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 78-4069-CV-C.,78-4069-CV-C. |
Parties | Roy R. HANSEN and Dollie L. Hansen, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Department of the Treasury, and Internal Revenue Service, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Roy R. Hansen, pro se.
Dollie L. Hansen, pro se.
Samuel M. Simpson, Trial Atty., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants.
Plaintiffs, owners of the Linncreek Auction establishment in Linn Creek, Missouri, have filed a civil suit for refund of certain taxes paid to defendants for the year 1974 and for declaratory relief concerning tax liability for the years 1974 and 1975.
From the complaint, it appears that plaintiffs operate an auction house in Camden County, Missouri. They assert that auctioneers who conduct sales at the auction house are independent contractors; on this basis plaintiffs allege that they are not obligated to withhold FICA taxes from the auctioneers' pay or submit the fruits of that withholding to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The complaint alleges that plaintiffs sought advice from the Springfield, Missouri, IRS office in March 1974 concerning the necessity for withholding FICA taxes from the auctioneers' pay. Springfield IRS officials allegedly advised plaintiffs not to withhold FICA taxes and to treat their workers as independent contractors for tax purposes. The complaint also asserts that another IRS employee determined in September 1976 that plaintiffs were liable for FICA taxes for their workers. An assessment of approximately $4500 was imposed as the result of this determination. Plaintiffs allege that they faithfully attempted to exhaust administrative remedies with the IRS and that they tendered a check for $92.66, their liability for the first quarter of 1974, on December 22, 1977. The check was apparently returned to them in February 1978. This action results from plaintiffs' continuing efforts to resolve their difficulties with the IRS.
On May 26, 1978, Robert Livingston, Chief of the IRS Western Region Civil Trial Section sent plaintiffs a letter which sheds further light on the issues presented by this case:
As noted by Mr. Livingston, the "crux of the problem" is whether this Court currently has jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs' claims. In their answer to plaintiff's complaint, defendants contend that the Court currently lacks jurisdiction over this suit. They seek its dismissal on that basis. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, apparently argue that even though no formal assessment was made against them by the IRS until March 1978, their December payment of part of their total liability together with a letter requesting repayment or refund was sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisites involved in this action.
Title 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a), which is cited by defendants as authority for their contention that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this suit, states:
No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected . . . until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed . . according to the provisions of law in that regard . . ..
Section 6532 of the Internal Revenue Code states that no suit under section 7422 may be brought until "the expiration of six months from the date of filing the claim required under that section unless the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate renders a decision thereon within that time . . .."
For purposes of this suit, then, the Court lacks...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Retfalvi v. United States, 5:17-CV-468-D
...is currently due and owing as a tax." Rambo v. United States, 492 F.2d 1060, 1061 n.1 (6th Cir. 1974) ; see Hansen v. United States, 455 F.Supp. 1367, 1369 (W.D. Mo. 1978). A tax assessment "establishes a prima facie case of liability and nothing more." Kurio v. United States, 281 F.Supp. 2......
-
Estate of Pechan v. US, 86 CV 1471.
...unless a refund claim has been submitted to the agency. Oldland v. Kurtz, 528 F.Supp. 316, 322 (D.Colo.1981); Hansen v. United States, 455 F.Supp. 1367, 1369 (W.D.Mo. 1978); see Arch Engineering Co., 783 F.2d at 190-91 (dictum); Altman v. Connally, 456 F.2d 1114, 1115-6 (2d Cir.1972) (per D......
-
Hansen v. United States
...Rosenblum v. United States, 549 F.2d 1140 (8th Cir.1977); Spannaus v. United States, 525 F.2d 231 (8th Cir.1975); Hansen v. United States, 455 F.Supp. 1367 (W.D.Mo.1978); O'Day Equipment, Inc. v. United States, 454 F.Supp. 444 The plaintiffs fail to satisfy the judicial exceptions to the in......