Pollack v. U.S., 86-1540
| Decision Date | 19 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1540,86-1540 |
| Citation | 819 F.2d 144 |
| Parties | -5038, 87-2 USTC P 9463 Arthur & Shirley POLLACK, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Gary Pollack (argued), Southfield, Mich., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Ross MacKenzie, Asst. U.S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., Michael L. Paup (Lead Counsel), Roger M. Olsen, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Richard Farber, John J. Boyle (argued), for defendant-appellee.
Before KEITH, KENNEDY and RYAN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-appellants, Arthur and Shirley Pollack ("the taxpayers"), appeal from a judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on June 10, 1986, granting the Government's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the taxpayers' complaint with prejudice. We find that, although the taxpayers styled their complaint as a suit to quiet title to real property under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2410, they were actually seeking to establish the amount of interest owed them on an overpayment. Since a suit to quiet title is not the proper means for obtaining such relief, we hold that the District Court was without jurisdiction, and we REMAND the action to the District Court with instructions that it vacate its judgment and dismiss the complaint.
This appeal arises from a dispute between the taxpayers and the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") over the amount of interest due the taxpayers on their overpayment in income tax for the taxable year 1976. The overpayment arose from a net operating loss incurred by the taxpayers in 1979 which could be carried back to 1976. Taxpayers contended that the interest owed them by the Government on the overpayment was sufficient to reduce the deficiency they owed for the 1975 tax year to zero. The IRS disagreed and, in October, 1983, filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien with the Register of Deeds in Wayne County, Michigan, placing a tax lien against certain property owned by the taxpayers.
On September 20, 1984, the taxpayers filed this action to quiet title to real property pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2410. They alleged that the IRS had miscalculated the statutory interest due them from their 1976 overpayment, and that their tax liability for 1975 was only $2,432.21, rather than the $9,207.50 claimed by the IRS. The taxpayers requested that the District Court "enter judgment determning [sic] that upon payment by Plaintiff [of] the sum of $2,432.21 the lien filed by Defendant ... has been fully satisfied and discharged and that Plaintiff holds title to his property free and clear of any lien in favor of Defendant." Joint Appendix at 8.
On June 5, 1986, the District Court issued an opinion from the bench, agreeing with the Government that 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6611(f)(1) controlled the date on which interest began to accrue on the taxpayers' overpayment and granting summary judgment to the Government. The taxpayers thereafter paid the balance due on their 1975 assessment, and the lien on their property was discharged.
We do not address the merits of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Youghiogheny and Ohio v. Milliken
... ... Rather, it is the 1997 ALJ's decision and order that is before us. In the modification proceedings, the ALJ considered not only the evidence that had been submitted ... ...
-
Egbert v. US
...in that it does not permit a collateral attack on the merits of the tax assessment that gave rise to the lien. Pollack v. United States, 819 F.2d 144 (6th Cir.1987). A court will not automatically assume jurisdiction over a taxpayer's challenge to the validity of an assessment merely becaus......
-
Lonsdale v. U.S.
...or collection actions in the guise of a quiet title action. See Schmidt v. King, 913 F.2d 837 (10th Cir.1990); Pollack v. United States, 819 F.2d 144 (6th Cir.1987); Laino v. United States, 633 F.2d 626, 633 n. 8 (2d Cir.1980); Mulcahy v. United States, 388 F.2d 300 (5th Cir.1968); Falik v.......
-
Geiselman v. U.S., s. 91-1501
...See Schmidt v. King, 913 F.2d 837, 839 (10th Cir.1990); Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 527-28 (9th Cir.1990); Pollack v. United States, 819 F.2d 144, 145 (6th Cir.1987) and cases cited Michael alleged the existence of three procedural defects: (1) he had not been issued a "statutory" notic......