TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Franklin v. United States

David W. FRANKLIN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent

Franklin v. United States, 581 F. Supp. 38 (E.D. Mich. 1984)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, E.D. Michigan · Federal District Courts
Decided
March 16, 1984
Docket
No. 83CV-6445-AA
Judges
Joiner
Citations
581 F. Supp. 3854 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 53551984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18550

Opinion — Joiner

ORDER JOINER, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition to quash an IRS summons. The motion has been considered on the papers filed and without oral argument pursuant to Fed.R. Civ.P. 78 and Local Rule 17(j).

Congress recently changed the procedures for challenging Internal Revenue summons issued to statutory third-party recordkeepers when it enacted the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA). Under the new procedure, in order to challenge an IRS summons by a petition to quash, the taxpayer must file an action within 20 days of receiving notice of the summons.

(b) Right to Intervene; right to proceedings to quash— (2) Proceeding to quash.— (A) In general. Notwithstanding any other law or rule of law, any person who is entitled to notice of a summons under subsection (a) shall have the right to begin a proceeding to quash such summons not later than the 20th day after the day such notice is given in the manner provided in subsection (a)(2)....

26 U.S.C. § 7609 (b)(2).

The taxpayer was entitled to notice under subsection (a) and notice was mailed on October 7, 1983. The statute provides for notice by certified mail. That method of service was used in the present case. § 7609(a)(2) provides that notice is sufficient if it “is mailed”. “Notice is given” as required by (b)(2) when it “is mailed”.

The taxpayer filed the petition to quash on November 10, 1983. This is more than 20 days after October 7. The petition is untimely and consequently this Court lacks jurisdiction to provide the relief requested.

THEREFORE, the respondent’s motion is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1985: 11986: 31987: 11989: 11999: 219852026peak 1986 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wall Industries, Inc. v. United States10 Cl. Ct. 82 (Ct. Cl. 1986)
  2. Clay v. United States199 F.3d 876 (6th Cir. 1999)
  3. George M. Stringer v. United States of America, and Ira G. Chambless, Internal Revenue Agent, Internal Revenue Service776 F.2d 274 (11th Cir. 1985)
  4. Dame v. United States643 F. Supp. 533 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)
  5. Cosme v. Internal Revenue Service708 F. Supp. 45 (E.D.N.Y. 1989)
  6. Nardini v. United States676 F. Supp. 389 (D. Mass. 1987)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list