Menu
Tax Notes logo

COURT DISMISSES COUPLE'S REFUND, DAMAGES SUIT.

APR. 24, 2000

Johnson, William H., et ux. v. U.S. et al.

DATED APR. 24, 2000
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Case Name
    WILLIAM H. JOHNSON, LINDA L. JOHNSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendants-Appellees.
  • Court
    United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
  • Docket
    No. 99-13569
  • Judge
    per curiam
  • Cross-Reference
    William H. Johnson, et ux. v. United States, et al., No. 1:96-CV-1757-

    JOF (July 14, 1999) (For a summary, see Tax Notes, Aug. 30, 1999, p.

    1281; for the full text, see Doc 1999-26962 (4 original pages) or 1999

    TNT 161-9.)
  • Parallel Citation
    2000-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,430
    2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 29294
  • Code Sections
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Index Terms
    collections, abusive, civil damages
    refunds, taxpayer suits
  • Jurisdictions
  • Language
    English
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    Doc 2000-23644 (2 original pages)
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2000 TNT 178-11

Johnson, William H., et ux. v. U.S. et al.

                         NOT FOR PUBLICATION

 

 

                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS,

 

                            11TH CIRCUIT

 

 

                           April 24, 2000

 

 

  Affirming a District Court decision, 99-1 USTC paragraph 50,463.

 

 

     Before: Tjoflat, Edmondson and Hull, Circuit Judges.

 

 

[1] PER CURIAM: In this appeal, appellants challenge

1) The district court's dismissal of appellants' claim for damages under Section 7433 of the Internal Revenue Code (on the ground that the statute of limitations barred the claim);

2) The district court's ruling that the doctrine of res adjudicata barred appellants' refund claims;

3) The district court's grant of summary judgment for the Government on appellants' Freedom of Information Act claim;

4) The district court's denial of appellants' motion for reconsideration, for stay of judgment pending appeal, and for recusal; and

5) The district court's denial of appellants' motions to compel discovery.

[2] We find no merit in any of appellants' challenges. We add a brief word with respect to appellants' claim that the district court should have recused. The claim is baseless. The court went to considerable lengths to afford appellants fair treatment; it certainly did not give them short shrift.

[3] AFFIRMED.

DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Case Name
    WILLIAM H. JOHNSON, LINDA L. JOHNSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendants-Appellees.
  • Court
    United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
  • Docket
    No. 99-13569
  • Judge
    per curiam
  • Cross-Reference
    William H. Johnson, et ux. v. United States, et al., No. 1:96-CV-1757-

    JOF (July 14, 1999) (For a summary, see Tax Notes, Aug. 30, 1999, p.

    1281; for the full text, see Doc 1999-26962 (4 original pages) or 1999

    TNT 161-9.)
  • Parallel Citation
    2000-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,430
    2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 29294
  • Code Sections
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Index Terms
    collections, abusive, civil damages
    refunds, taxpayer suits
  • Jurisdictions
  • Language
    English
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    Doc 2000-23644 (2 original pages)
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2000 TNT 178-11
Copy RID