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

Judicial Review of "taxpayer" status?

Expand Messages
  • legalbear7
    In Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d 504, 508 (C.A.2 1961) the Court said, However, a reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 10, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      In Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d 504, 508 (C.A.2 1961) the Court said, "However, a reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as persons liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of `taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their property is seized and sold."

      Is there anyone in this group that has Sheppardized this case across the circuits and into the Supreme Court to see what is being said about it?

       

      Phones: 970-635-2601 (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 www.legalbears.com

       

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



    • vicki mangum
      In Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d 504, 508 (C.A.2 1961) the Court said, However, a reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 13, 2008
      • 0 Attachment


        In Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d 504, 508 (C.A.2 1961) the Court said, "However, a reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as persons liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of `taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their property is seized and sold."

        Question:   Is there anyone in this group that has Sheppardized this case across the circuits and into the Supreme Court to see what is being said about it?

        Answer:   
        My friend Val shepardized this case for you.  Here it is. I haven't read these cases to determine the negative or positive affects yet.  Just got it.



         

        Copyright 2008 SHEPARD'S(R) - 49 Citing references

         

        Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d 504, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5153, 7 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 966, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P60152, 61-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9293 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1961)

         

        SHEPARD'S Signal(TM):  Caution: Possible negative treatment

        Restrictions: Unrestricted

        FOCUS(TM) Terms: No FOCUS terms

        Print Format: FULL

        Citing Ref. Signal: Hidden

         

        SHEPARD'S SUMMARY

         

         

        Unrestricted Shepard's Summary

        Subsequent appellate history contains possible negative analysis.

        Citing References:

           Cautionary Analyses:

        Distinguished (4)

           Positive Analyses:

        Followed (1)

           Neutral Analyses:

        Explained (2)

           Other Sources:

        Law Reviews (2), Statutes (1), Court Documents (14)

         

         

        LexisNexis Headnotes:

        HN1 (3), HN2 (6), HN3 (8)

         

        PRIOR HISTORY  ( 1 citing reference )

         

        1.

         

        Botta v. Scanlon, 187 F. Supp. 856, 1960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3614, 6 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5486, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P59991, 60-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9643 (E.D.N.Y. 1960)

         

         

         

        Modified by (CITATION YOU ENTERED):

         

         

        Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d 504, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5153, 7 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 966, Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P60152, 61-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9293 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1961)

         

        SUBSEQUENT APPELLATE HISTORY  ( 2 citing references )

         

         

         

         

         

        CITING DECISIONS  ( 29 citing decisions )

         

        2ND CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS

         

        4.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Botta v. Scanlon, 314 F.2d 392, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6101, 11 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 908, 11 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1042, 63-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9298, 63-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9352 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1963) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1

         

        5.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Bullock v. Latham, 306 F.2d 45, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4433, 10 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5243, 62-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9640 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1962) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3

        306 F.2d 45 p.47

         

         

        2ND CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

         

        6.

         

        Distinguished by:

         

         

        United States v. Augspurger, 452 F. Supp. 659, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18946, 41 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1125, 78-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9339 (W.D.N.Y. 1978) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1

        452 F. Supp. 659 p.666

         

         

        7.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Berman v. Scanlon, 277 F. Supp. 646, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10937, 20 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5614, 67-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9665 (E.D.N.Y. 1967) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

        277 F. Supp. 646 p.648

         

         

        8.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Liguori v. United States, 246 F. Supp. 530, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9171, 16 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5693, 65-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P15660 (E.D.N.Y. 1965)

        246 F. Supp. 530 p.532

         

         

        9.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Iraci v. Scanlon, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5754, 62-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9729 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 1962)

         

        10.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Falik v. United States, 206 F. Supp. 181, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5003, 10 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5589, 62-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9751 (E.D.N.Y. 1962) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3

        206 F. Supp. 181 p.181

        206 F. Supp. 181 p.182

         

         

        11.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Pettengill v. United States, 205 F. Supp. 10, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5750, 10 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5514, 62-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9667 (D. Vt. 1962)

        205 F. Supp. 10 p.12

         

         

        12.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Iraci v. Scanlon, 202 F. Supp. 42, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5100, 9 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 988, 62-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9268 (E.D.N.Y. 1962)

        202 F. Supp. 42 p.45

         

         

        13.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Iraci v. Scanlon, 202 F. Supp. 42, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5710, 9 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 536, 62-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9166 (E.D.N.Y. 1961)

        202 F. Supp. 42 p.44

         

         

        14.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Botta v. Scanlon, 198 F. Supp. 899, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5642, 8 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5987, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 325, 61-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9754 (E.D.N.Y. 1961) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3

         

        15.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Kearney v. A'Hearn, 210 F. Supp. 10, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5745, 11 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 582, 6 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 187, 63-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9221 (S.D.N.Y. 1961)

        210 F. Supp. 10 p.17

         

         

        16.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Heller v. Scanlon, 196 F. Supp. 832, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5183, 8 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5067, 61-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9570 (E.D.N.Y. 1961) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

        196 F. Supp. 832 p.833

        196 F. Supp. 832 p.834

         

         

        3RD CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

         

        17.

         

        Followed by:

         

         

        Ruby v. Mayer, 194 F. Supp. 594, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5115, 8 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5148, 61-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9604 (D.N.J. 1961) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

        194 F. Supp. 594 p.597

         

         

        4TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

         

        18.

         

        Distinguished by:

         

         

        Mowrey v. In rem "Notice of Lien" Filed by Ward , 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6157, 87 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2141, 2001-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50402 (W.D.N.C. 2001) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3

        2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6157

         

         

        5TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS

         

        19.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        United States v. Hill, 368 F.2d 617, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4462, 18 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5913, 18 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6183, 66-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9736, 67-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9137 (5th Cir. Tex. 1966) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

        368 F.2d 617 p.621

         

         

        6TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

         

        20.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Philpot v. IRS, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11870, 49 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 899, 82-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9288 (S.D. Ohio 1982)

         

        7TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

         

        21.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        In re Steckler, 195 F. Supp. 879, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5100 (S.D. Ind. 1961) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1, HN3

        195 F. Supp. 879 p.880

         

         

        9TH CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS

         

        22.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Shaw v. United States, 331 F.2d 493, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5680, 13 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1263, 64-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9421 (9th Cir. Cal. 1964) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3

        331 F.2d 493 p.497

         

         

        9TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

         

        23.

         

        Distinguished by:

         

         

        Carter v. United States, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10408, 76 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5802, 95 TNT 152-18 (S.D. Cal. 1995) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3

        76 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5802 p.5804

         

         

        24.

         

        Distinguished by:

         

         

        Smith v. Leonard, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14305, 76 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7946, 95 TNT 244-26 (D. Or. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

        76 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7946 p.7948

         

         

        25.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Stamos v. United States, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16430 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 1988)

         

        26.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Artic Amusement, Inc. v. Caplan, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5067, 10 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6347, 62-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P15432 (D. Alaska 1962) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3

         

        27.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Gordon v. Evans, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5720, 9 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 340, 62-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9196 (D. Nev. 1961)

         

        10TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

         

        28.

         

        Explained by:

         

         

        Shipley v. IRS, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5763, 85 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1798, 2000-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50424 (D. Kan. 2000) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2

        2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5763

        85 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1798 p.1802

        2000-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50424

         

         

        29.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Lyman v. Gailey, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10941, 71A A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 4594, 90-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50467 (D. Utah 1990)

        71A A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 4594 p.4595

         

         

        11TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

         

        30.

         

        Explained by:

         

         

        Leddy v. Sullivan, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13312, 74 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6379, 94 TNT 190-10 (S.D. Ala. 1994)

        74 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6379 p.6380

         

         

        31.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Federal Home Life Ins. Co. v. Ross, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19776, 53 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 969, 84-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9331 (N.D. Ga. 1984)

         

        32.

         

        Cited by:

         

         

        Williams v. Ross, 228 F. Supp. 751, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9615, 13 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1094, 64-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9407 (N.D. Ga. 1963)

        228 F. Supp. 751 p.753

         

         

        ANNOTATED STATUTES ( 1 Citing Statute )

         

        33.

         

        26 USCS @ 6204

         

        LAW REVIEWS AND PERIODICALS ( 2 Citing References )

         

        34.

         

        88 Harv. L. Rev. 1360

        88 Harv. L. Rev. 1360 p.1437

         

         

        35.

         

        NOTE: Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction and the Power to Enjoin the IRS., 70 Minn. L. Rev. 1279 (1986)

        70 Minn. L. Rev. 1279 p.1279

         

         

        BRIEFS ( 2 Citing Briefs )

         

        36.

         

        UNITED STATES v. AHEE, 1999 U.S. 6th Cir. Briefs 1991, 2000 U.S. 6th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 42 (6th Cir. June 12, 2000)

         

        37.

         

        UNITED STATES v. AHEE, 1999 U.S. 6th Cir. Briefs 1991, 2000 U.S. 6th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 44 (6th Cir. June 12, 2000)

         

        MOTIONS ( 10 Citing Motions )

         

        38.

         

        McKean v. UNITED STATES, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2202, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 13464 (D.D.C. June 27, 2008)

         

        39.

         

        UNITED STATES v. KORMAN, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 568150, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 18269 (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2008)

         

        40.

         

        KISH v. ROGERS, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 439922, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 20816 (S.D. Tex. May 23, 2007)

         

        41.

         

        Gavigan v. IRS UNITED STATES, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 942A, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 2568 (D. Conn. Jan. 11, 2007)

         

        42.

         

        Phillips v. IRS, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 2719, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 8814 (D. Ariz. Jan. 5, 2007)

         

        43.

         

        Evans-Hoke v. Snow, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 534969, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 48141 (D.D.C. July 26, 2006)

         

        44.

         

        Evans-Hoke v. Snow, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 534969, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 48138 (D.D.C. June 15, 2006)

         

        45.

         

        KERNS v. SMITH, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 80639, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 13787 (D. Neb. June 2, 2006)

         

        46.

         

        KERNS v. SMITH, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 80639, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 13786 (D. Neb. Apr. 13, 2006)

         

        47.

         

        UNITED STATES v. SMITH, 1999 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 974A, 2001 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 8919 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 26, 2001)

         

        PLEADINGS ( 2 Citing Pleadings )

         

        48.

         

        Hopkins v. IRS, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 582861, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 7161 (D.N.M. July 24, 2007)

         

        (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

      • BOB GREGORY
        ... * * * The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 13, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:23 PM, vicki mangum <vickivarner55@...> wrote:

          No Sheppardizing, but here are some related citations:



          "The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."

          "The distinction between persons and things within the scope of the revenue laws and those without is vital."
          [Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 @ 238(1922)]


          "A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the states as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their property is seized..." 

          [Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)]


          "And by statutory definition the term "taxpayer" includes any person, trust or estate subject to a tax imposed by the revenue act. ...Since the statutory definition of taxpayer is exclusive, the federal [and state] courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts..." 
          [C.I.R. v.
          Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n., 100 F.2d.18 (1939)]

           


          In Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d 504, 508 (C.A.2 1961) the Court said, "However, a reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as persons liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of `taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their property is seized and sold."

          Question:   Is there anyone in this group that has Sheppardized this case across the circuits and into the Supreme Court to see what is being said about it?

          Answer:   
          My friend Val shepardized this case for you.  Here it is. I haven't read these cases to determine the negative or positive affects yet.  Just got it.


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