- 10 -
the time respondent’s agent provided it to petitioner, but that
it was valid on the grounds that (1) once petitioner signed it
and submitted it to respondent, the period of limitations was
automatically extended, and that respondent had relied upon the
validity of the form; and (2) the 60-day period within which to
submit the Form 5213 never began to run because respondent had
not provided petitioner with written notice that respondent
intended to disallow petitioner’s loss attributable to his
fishing.
Petitioner brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York (New York case) seeking an
injunction against collection of his 1990 through 1993 taxes and
quiet title relief under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2410. Follum v. United
States, 83 AFTR 2d 99-1622, 99-1 USTC par. 50,395 (W.D.N.Y.
1999), affd. without published opinion 199 F.3d 1322 (2d Cir.
1999). The District Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to
consider petitioner’s statute of limitations challenge to his tax
liability because it was a challenge to the liability that would
properly be raised in a deficiency or refund suit, not an
allegation of procedural irregularities in the collection of
taxes cognizable under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2410. The District Court
also held that petitioner’s request for an injunction was barred
by section 7421(a), the Anti-Injunction Act. The District Court
rejected petitioner’s claim that assessment of his tax
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007