Stringer v. U.S., No. 85-8103

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore TJOFLAT, VANCE and KRAVITCH; PER CURIAM
Citation776 F.2d 274
Parties-401, 85-2 USTC P 9816 George M. STRINGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, and Ira G. Chambless, Internal Revenue Agent, Internal Revenue Service, Respondents-Appellees. Non-Argument Calendar.
Docket NumberNo. 85-8103
Decision Date15 November 1985

Page 274

776 F.2d 274
57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-401, 85-2 USTC P 9816
George M. STRINGER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, and Ira G. Chambless, Internal
Revenue Agent, Internal Revenue Service,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 85-8103
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Nov. 15, 1985.

Page 275

Melissa S. Mundell, Asst. Atty., Savannah, Ga., Michael L. Paup, Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Charles E. Brookhart, John P. Griffin, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, D.C., for respondents-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

Before TJOFLAT, VANCE and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

George M. Stringer appeals the judgment of the district court dismissing his petition to quash an IRS summons as being untimely filed.

The IRS, pursuant to an income tax investigation of Stringer, issued a summons to a third party bank on May 29, 1984, and sent Stringer a copy by certified mail on that same date. Stringer, however, did not receive the notice until May 31, 1984. On June 19, 1984, he filed a petition to quash the summons. The district court dismissed his petition on the ground that it was not timely filed and thus the court lacked jurisdiction.

The resolution of whether or not Stringer's petition was timely filed is governed by 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7609(b)(2)(A). That statute provides:

(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other law or rule of law, any person who is entitled to notice of a summons under subsection (a) shall have the right to begin a proceeding to quash such summons not later than the 20th day after the day such notice is given in the manner provided in subsection (a)(2). In any such proceeding, the Secretary may seek to compel compliance with the summons.

Subsection (a)(2) of section 7609 specifies that notice is sufficient if it is personally served upon or is mailed by certified or registered mail to the last known address of the person entitled to notice. Stringer contends that he was not "given" notice as required by section 7609(b)(2)(A) until May 31, the date he received a copy of the summons, and that he thus filed his petition to quash within the time constraints of the statute. The government, on the other hand, argues that the term "given" means the date on which the notice was mailed; as a result the petition was not filed within the twenty day limitation.

We agree with the IRS. Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 practice notes
  • Marcus v. McCollum, No. 03-6148.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • December 30, 2004
    ...the officers fulfilled their responsibility to Page 821 keep the peace without aiding Mr. McCollum's private repossession. See Booker, 776 F.2d at 274. At the time of the seizure at issue, Mr. McCollum's security interest in the Pontiac Firebird parked in the Marcuses' driveway was disputed......
  • Specht v. Jensen, Nos. 85-1457
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • November 10, 1987
    ...of the police to the entry was sufficient to permit the jury to find that he was more than a mere peace-keeping bystander. See Booker, 776 F.2d at 274; Howerton v. Gabica, 708 F.2d 380, 382-84 (9th Cir.1983); Harris, 664 F.2d at The evidence of Owens' activity at the Specht residence is lik......
  • Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin, Civ. A. No. 84-AR-5131-NW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • May 28, 1986
    ...Couvillion properly alleged good faith in his answer and Booker has offered no evidence to rebut this claim. (emphasis supplied). 776 F.2d at 274. In Preuit & Mauldin's case the repossessor, a private actor, did not employ self-help as in Booker. Instead, it invoked the jurisdiction of ......
  • Dennis v. US, No. 85-3286.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. Central District of Illinois
    • May 22, 1987
    ...later than the 20th day after the day such notice is given in the manner provided in subsection (a)(2).... See Stringer v. United States, 776 F.2d 274, 275 (11th Cir.1985); Abraham v. United States, 582 F.Supp. 257 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd per curiam, 740 F.2d 2 (2d Cir.1984); Riggs v. United Stat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
45 cases
  • Marcus v. McCollum, No. 03-6148.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • December 30, 2004
    ...the officers fulfilled their responsibility to Page 821 keep the peace without aiding Mr. McCollum's private repossession. See Booker, 776 F.2d at 274. At the time of the seizure at issue, Mr. McCollum's security interest in the Pontiac Firebird parked in the Marcuses' driveway was disputed......
  • Specht v. Jensen, Nos. 85-1457
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • November 10, 1987
    ...of the police to the entry was sufficient to permit the jury to find that he was more than a mere peace-keeping bystander. See Booker, 776 F.2d at 274; Howerton v. Gabica, 708 F.2d 380, 382-84 (9th Cir.1983); Harris, 664 F.2d at The evidence of Owens' activity at the Specht residence is lik......
  • Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin, Civ. A. No. 84-AR-5131-NW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • May 28, 1986
    ...Couvillion properly alleged good faith in his answer and Booker has offered no evidence to rebut this claim. (emphasis supplied). 776 F.2d at 274. In Preuit & Mauldin's case the repossessor, a private actor, did not employ self-help as in Booker. Instead, it invoked the jurisdiction of ......
  • Dennis v. US, No. 85-3286.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. Central District of Illinois
    • May 22, 1987
    ...later than the 20th day after the day such notice is given in the manner provided in subsection (a)(2).... See Stringer v. United States, 776 F.2d 274, 275 (11th Cir.1985); Abraham v. United States, 582 F.Supp. 257 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd per curiam, 740 F.2d 2 (2d Cir.1984); Riggs v. United Stat......
  • 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