Warren R. Follum - Page 14




                                       - 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