- 15 -
plaintiff’s claims that the tax assessments are invalid are
without merit for the reasons stated by the United States in its
reply brief.” Follum v. United States, 83 AFTR 2d 99-1627 n.4,
99-1 USTC par. 50,395, at 87,966 n.4. The Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment.
Follum v. United States, 199 F.3d 1322 (2d Cir. 1999).
The District Court in the New York case denied petitioner’s
section 6303 claim not on jurisdictional grounds but on the
grounds that he had not timely raised the issue and that the
allegations were without merit. If petitioner had raised the
section 6303 claim timely, there would have been subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2410 over the claim because it
was a challenge to the procedural validity of the collection
action and not to the existence of the tax liability. See Hughes
v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1992). In the
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina,
petitioner alleged again that the Government had not sent him the
notice and demand for payment required by section 6303. See
Follum v. United States, 89 AFTR 2d 2002-1625 (E.D.N.C. 2001),
which was not appealed. The District Court dismissed the case,
holding that petitioner was seeking the same relief as in the New
York case, that the grounds on which he based his claim were
“previously available” to him in that suit, and that
consequently, his suit in the North Carolina case was barred by
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007