United States v. ONE 1972 CADILLAC, COUPE DEVILLE, ETC., Civ. A. No. 2161.

Decision Date21 March 1973
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 2161.
Citation355 F. Supp. 513
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. ONE 1972 CADILLAC, COUPE DEVILLE, 2-DOOR HARDTOP, ID. NO. 6D47R2Q238129, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky

Eugene E. Siler, Jr., U. S. Atty., E. D. Ky., Robert M. Murphy, Asst. U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., for plaintiff.

B. Robert Stivers, London, Ky., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HERMANSDORFER, District Judge.

This libel action follows the conviction of one Ernest Sims for violation of Internal Revenue tax laws. United States v. Ernest Sims, Criminal No. 14,963, (E.D.Ky. January 12, 1973). Jurisdiction is alleged on 26 U.S.C. §§ 7301, 7302, under the authorization of the Attorney General or his delegate pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7401. Venue lies in the Eastern District of Kentucky under 26 U.S.C. § 7323(a).

Under the evidence entered during trial, there is no doubt the essential element of 26 U.S.C. § 7301(e) has been established:

". . . property used to transport . . . or concealment of property which is intended to be used in the making or packaging of property described in subsection (a) . . . possession of property for the purpose of avoiding payment of tax or concealment with intent to defraud the United States of such tax.

"A vehicle used in the violation of Internal Revenue tax laws is subject to seizure and forfeiture under the provisions of 26 U.S.C. §§ 7301, 7302, 7321. . . ." United States v. Mills, 440 F.2d 647, 648 (6th Cir. 1971).

The sole determination to be made is whether the forfeiture may proceed in view of the allegation of the Complaint:

"Second—The commencement of this suit has been authorized sanctioned and directed in accordance with the provisions of Section 7401 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954."

and the answer specifically denying that allegation by the intervenor:

". . . that portion which states that this suit is authorized and sanctioned and directed in accordance with the provisions of Section 7401 with sic the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 which is specifically denied by Ernest Sims."

The United States offered no proof of compliance with 26 U.S.C. § 7401. Instead, it merely asserts the existence of the fact without argument or citation of authority for its view. The intervenor, Sims, argues United States v. One 1941 Cadillac Sedan, 145 F.2d 296 (7th Cir. 1944) does invoke a presumption of authorization of the action, but only when the issue is not raised by the intervenor's petition. Here the issue has been joined. The questions (1) whether a conclusive presumption arises by law making unnecessary any proof of the allegation or (2) whether the plaintiff must show proof of their authority to bring the action must be considered.

The provision of 26 U.S.C. § 7401 is set forth in its entirety:

"§ 7401. Authorization
"No civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes, or of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, shall be commenced unless the Secretary or his delegate authorizes or sanctions the proceeding and the Attorney General or his delegate directs that the action be commenced."

Thus, the proscribed procedure requires two steps. First, that a civil action be authorized by the Secretary or his delegate. "Secretary" as defined in 26 U.S. C. § 7701 means the Secretary of the Treasury. "Delegate" as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 7701 refers to one who is an employee of the Treasury Department securing his authority from the Secretary or by redelegation, directly or indirectly. The second step requires direction of the Attorney General or his delegate to commence the action. Under 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(12) "the term `or his delegate' when used in connection with any other official of the United States shall be similarly construed". The term "Attorney General" means the Attorney General of the United States. 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(22).

The matter appears to be one of first impression. Except for the language of United States v. One 1941 Cadillac Sedan, supra, presuming the authority of the United States Attorney to bring the action where the petitioner had not raised the question at the trial, no case authority has been cited or found on this question. The Seventh Circuit...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Lunnon v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • June 23, 2021
    ...F. Supp. 730 (D. Colo. Jan. 15, 1979)7 and U.S. v. One 1972 Cadillac, Coupe Deville, 2-Door Hardtop, ID. No. 6D47R2Q238129, 355 F. Supp. 513 (D. Ky. March 21, 1973),8 to argue that§7401 prohibits civil actions without authorization from the "Secretary" and Attorney General. Although the Uni......
  • United States v. Williams
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • September 28, 2012
    ...Inc., 24 F. Supp. 2d 545 (E.D. Va. 1998); U.S. v. One 1972 Cadillac, Coupe Deville, 2-Door Hardtop, ID. No. 6D47R2Q238129, 355 F. Supp. 513, 515 (D.C. Ky. 1973) ("The failure to prove jurisdictional facts when specifically denied is fatal to the maintenance of this action."). 3. Ms. Stiger'......
  • U.S. v. Walters
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • January 20, 1981
    ...directs that the action be commenced. Aug. 16, 1954, c. 736, 68A Stat. 873. This statute was construed in United States v. One 1972 Cadillac Coup DeVille, 355 F.Supp. 513 (E.D.Ky.1973), to require (1) specific permission from the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate to proceed and (2) ......
  • United States v. Zimmerman
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • August 13, 2012
    ...(Section 7401); United States v. Ball, 326 F.2d 898, 903 (4th Cir. 1964) (Section 6212(a)); United States v. One 1972 Cadillac, Coupe Deville, 2-Door Hardtop, 355 F. Supp. 513, 515 (E.D. Ky. 1973) (Section 7401)). But see United States v. Raymond, 228 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Civil Forfeiture
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 9-10, October 1980
    • Invalid date
    ...States v. Twenty-Two Firearms, 463 F.Supp. 730 (D.C. Colo. 1979); United States v. One 1972 Cadillac, Coupe DeVille, 2-Door Hardtop, 355 F.Supp. 513 (E.D. Ky. 1973). 6. 401 U.S. 434, 28 L.Ed.2d 434 (1971). 7. Supra, note 1. 8. The criminal case was for a violation of Title 18, U.S.C. § 545,......

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