- 14 -
petitioner’s present section 6320 suit is a separate and distinct
suit from his previous suit under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2410, petitioner
would rely on the same facts and evidence to establish that
respondent failed to give him timely notice and demand in each
suit. See Sanders Confectionery Prods., Inc. v. Heller Fin.
Inc., 973 F.2d 474, 484 (6th Cir. 1992).
The District Court for the Western District of New York took
note of petitioner’s notice and demand claim. Primarily, the
District Court decided that a quiet title action does not allow a
taxpayer to collaterally attack the substantive validity of the
underlying tax assessment that led to the lien. Specifically,
the District Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider
petitioner’s challenge to his tax liability based on the statute
of limitations because it was a challenge to the underlying tax
liability of a kind that generally may be raised in a Tax Court
deficiency proceeding or a refund suit and was not an allegation
of procedural irregularities in the collection of those taxes
that was cognizable under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2410. The District
Court also rejected petitioner’s claim that the tax assessments
should be invalidated because the IRS had not properly sent
notice and demand for payment as required by section 6303 to
petitioner’s last known address. The District Court noted that
because the claim was not raised in the amended complaint, it
could not be considered, but it added: “In any event,
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007