Daniel C. Greer and Winnie L. Greer - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
         E.   District Court Case                                                     
              In December 1992, after this Court had denied the partners’             
         motion for summary judgment, petitioners had mailed in one package           
         to respondent’s IRS Service Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, Forms                
         1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 1982 and the           
         carryback years 1979 through 1981.  One set of Forms 1040X                   
         reported additional tax and interest and included a check in the             
         amount of $189,769.  A second set of Forms 1040X bore the legend             
         “PROTECTIVE CLAIM” and sought refunds of the entire amount paid in           
         the check.  In August 1993, Mr. Greer filed a complaint in the               
         United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,           
         naming the United States as a defendant.  Mr. Greer’s complaint              
         was designated civil case No. 93-CV-194-HRW in the District Court            
         and was assigned to District Court Judge Henry Wilhoit.  Mr.                 
         Greer’s complaint sought the refund of the $189,769, plus                    
         interest, and alleged as one of the jurisdictional grounds section           
         6226.  The United States in seeking to dismiss Mr. Greer’s                   
         complaint asserted that no assessment of the $189,769 was                    
         permitted under section 6225(a)(2).                                          
              On September 21, 1994, the District Court entered the                   
         following order (the Order):                                                 
                   This matter is before the Court on defendant’s                     
              motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint based on lack of                
              subject matter jurisdiction.  Defendant’s motion to                     
              dismiss, although subsequent in time to plaintiff’s                     
              motion for partial summary judgment, logically precedes                 
              a summary judgment motion on the merits.                                

Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007