Seff v. Machiz

Decision Date15 September 1965
Docket NumberCiv. No. 16314.
Citation246 F. Supp. 823
PartiesWilliam H. SEFF v. Irving MACHIZ, District Director of Internal Revenue Service.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland

R. Lewis Bainder, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.

Thomas J. Kenney, U. S. Atty., Robert W. Kernan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., and Levon Kasarjian, Jr., Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant.

THOMSEN, Chief Judge.

This is "an action for the cancellation of a tax lien filed by the United States", in which jurisdiction is claimed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2410. The sketchy complaint alleges that on 27 January 1956 plaintiff and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue entered into a compromise agreement under which the plaintiff agreed to pay the sum of $10,000 in settlement of his unpaid income taxes for the years 1941 to 1944, inclusive, including interest and penalties; that there is now due and owing on said compromise agreement $1,582.50, which plaintiff is prepared to tender to the proper official upon the cancellation and extinguishment of the tax lien, but that plaintiff is advised and therefore avers that defendant refuses to cancel said tax lien upon payment of $1,582.50. Plaintiff demands "that the Court try to ascertain that the correct amount payable under said compromise agreement is $1,582.50 and that upon payment of same the lien of said notice of Federal Tax Lien aforesaid be cancelled for nought against the Plaintiff, and that upon payment of said sum the Defendant be forever enjoined and restrained from asserting, claiming or setting upon any right, title and interest in and to any property of the Plaintiff", and for other and further relief. Defendant has moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction.

Preliminarily, it should be noted that the United States is an indispensable party to any action to remove or cancel an income tax lien. Czieslik v. Burnet, E.D.N.Y., 57 F.2d 715 (1932); Stafford Mills v. White, D.Mass., 41 F.2d 58 (1930); Maryland Casualty Company v. Charleston Lead Works, E.D.S.C., 24 F.2d 836 (1928); Jones v. Tower Production Co. et al., 10 Cir., 138 F.2d 675 (1943). The government might be added by amendment, but the action would still have to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 2410 was intended to permit the United States to be joined as a party in a limited class of cases, namely, "suits to quiet title to or for the foreclosure of a mortgage or other lien upon real or personal property on which the United States has or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Yannicelli v. Nash
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • January 24, 1973
    ...is an indispensable party to any action to remove or cancel an income tax lien. Jones v. Tower Production Co., supra; Seff v. Machiz, 246 F.Supp. 823 (D.Md.1965); Czieslik v. Burnet, 57 F.2d 715 Nevertheless, under the liberal spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court does n......
  • Globe Products Corporation v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • November 26, 1974
    ...on which the United States "has or claims a mortgage or other lien." The section is not a jurisdictional grant. See Seff v. Machiz, 246 F.Supp. 823, 824 (D.Md.1965). Jurisdiction in this case is said to rest on 28 U.S.C. § 1340, which gives the federal district court subject matter jurisdic......
  • Nehf v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • October 27, 1967
    ...348 F.2d 919 (4th Cir. 1965); Quinn v. Hook, 231 F.Supp. 718 (E.D.Pa. 1964), affirmed 341 F.2d 920 (3d Cir. 1965); Seff v. Machiz, 246 F.Supp. 823 (D.Md.1965). The instant plaintiff seemingly would have this court invoke Section 2410(a) to compel enforcement of an alleged contract with the ......
  • Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. v. United States of America Acting Through IRS, 2007 NY Slip Op 33694(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 11/13/2007), 0007778/2007.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • November 13, 2007
    ...P 9310] 343 F. 2d 470 (4th Cir. 1965); Falik v. United States [65-1 USTC P 9295], 343 F. 2d 38 (2d Cir. 1965); Seff v. Machiz [65-2 USTC P 9691], 246 F. Supp. 823 (D. Md. 1965). In such a situation, the old adage of "pay first and litigate later" still applies. Flora v. United States [60-1 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT