Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Rules RE: Mandamus on IRS

Expand Messages
  • Legalbears
    [18] We review the denial of leave to file an amended complaint for abuse of discretion. Thomas-Lazear v. FBI, 851 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1988).
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 12, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      [18]     We review the denial of leave to file an amended complaint for abuse of discretion. Thomas-Lazear v. FBI, 851 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1988). Mandamus writs, as extraordinary remedies, are available only when a federal officer, employee, or agency owes a nondiscretionary duty to the plaintiff that is "so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt." Stang v. IRS, 788 F.2d 564, 565 (9th Cir. 1986) (quotations omitted). A writ of mandamus is appropriate only when the plaintiff has a clear right to relief, the defendant has a clear, ministerial duty to act, and no other adequate remedy is available. Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness v. Baldridge, 827 F.2d 1353, 1362 (9th Cir. 1987). Section 6203 sets out the method for recording an assessment against a taxpayer, and provides that, "upon request of the taxpayer, the Secretary shall furnish the taxpayer a copy of the record of the assessment." 26 U.S.C. § 6203.

       

      [19]     The Ostheimers contend that they sought information regarding their assessments from the IRS pursuant to section 6203. Nevertheless, the Ostheimers failed to show that they requested a copy of their assessments from the proper division of the IRS pursuant to section 6203 and that such request was denied. See 26 U.S.C. § 6203; Treas. Reg. § 301.6203-1; Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 539 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, they failed to show that the defendant had breached a clear duty and that they had a clear right to relief. See Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, 827 F.2d at 1362. Given these circumstances, the Ostheimers' proposed amended complaint failed to establish a basis for mandamus jurisdiction. See Stang, 788 F.2d at 565. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Ostheimers leave to file an amended complaint. See Thomas-Lazear, 851 F.2d at 1206. Ostheimer v. Lindquist, 972 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 07/29/1992)

       

       

       

      Phones: 970-613-8866 (1st) 720-203-5142 c. (2nd) Skype: Legalbear

       

      Bear's Webpages:

      www.irs-armory.com www.irslevythumper.com www.irslienthumper.com www.judgeonaleash.com www.freedivorceforms.net

       

      Bear's Free Yahoo Group: Tips & Tricks for Court

       

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.