David J. Edwards - Page 51




                                       - 51 -                                         
          whether the United States’ tax lien had priority over other                 
          claims to funds held in the name of a third party.  The United              
          States claimed the third party was the alter ego of the                     
          taxpayer/debtor, and that its tax lien therefore attached to the            
          funds.  The court agreed with the United States.                            
               Petitioner apparently relies on the following footnote in              
          the Diversified Metal opinion to support his position:                      
               The Internal Revenue Service, and not the United                       
               States, was originally named as defendant in this                      
               action.  However, the United States is correct that the                
               Internal Revenue Service has no capacity to sue or be                  
               sued.  Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 514, 96 L. Ed.                
               534, 72 S. Ct. 410 (1952).  Therefore, the United                      
               States is properly substituted for the Internal Revenue                
               Service in this action.  [Id. at 5832 n.3, 96-2 USTC                   
               par. 50,437, at 85,462 n.3.8]                                          
          In Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512 (1952), a discharged employee           
          of the Veterans Administration sued the United States Civil                 
          Service Commission for reinstatement.  The Court held that                  
          “Congress has not constituted the Commission a body corporate or            
          authorized it to be sued eo nomine.”  Id. at 514.  The Court also           
          stated “When Congress authorizes one of its agencies to be sued             
          eo nomine, it does so in explicit language, or impliedly because            
          the agency is the offspring of such a suable entity.”  Id. at               
          515.  By citing Blackmar in support of its decision that the                


               8On brief, petitioner grossly mischaracterizes this footnote           
          as “directing that the cause of action should be against the                
          Commissioner of Internal Revenue personally since he is not                 
          responsible for the conduct of others claiming to act under his             
          authority”.                                                                 





Page:  Previous  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011