Menu
Tax Notes logo
HOMETax Notes ResearchFederalCourt Documentscourt opinions and orders

NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN CASE FOR COLLECTION ACTION DAMAGES.

SEP. 26, 2000

Smith, James D., et ux. v. U.S.

DATED SEP. 26, 2000
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Case Name
    JAMES D. SMITH; DIANA L. SMITH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.
  • Court
    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • Docket
    No. 99-35817
  • Judge
    per curiam
  • Cross-Reference
    James D. Smith, et ux. v. United States; 83 AFTR2d Par. 99-366;

    No. 96-3078-CO (Dec. 22, 1998) (For a summary, see Tax Notes Feb.

    1, 1999; p. 650; for the full text, see Doc 1999-2038 (6 original

    pages) or 1999 TNT 18-11.)
  • Parallel Citation
    238 F.3d 430
    86 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2000-6386
    2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 24080
  • Code Sections
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Index Terms
    collections, abusive, civil damages
    collections, notice and demand
  • Jurisdictions
  • Language
    English
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    Doc 2000-25998 (2 original pages)
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2000 TNT 198-17

Smith, James D., et ux. v. U.S.

                         NOT FOR PUBLICATION

 

 

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 

                        FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 

 

            APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

                     FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

 

             Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding

 

 

                       D.C. No. CV 96-03078-CO

 

 

                           MEMORANDUM 1

 

 

                  Submitted September 11, 2000 2

 

 

     Before: Wallace, Fernandez, and McKeown, Circuit Judges.

 

 

[1] James D. Smith and Diana L. Smith appeal pro se the district court's summary judgment for defendant in their 26 U.S.C. section 7433 action alleging the United States failed to follow proper procedures in collecting taxes from the Smiths. 3 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1291. We review de novo, see Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

[2] Because the Forms 4340 indicate that notice and demand for payment was properly made under 26 U.S.C. section 6303(a) for the tax years covered in the notices of lien dated March 23, 1995, and the Smiths failed to present any evidence to the contrary, the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the United States. See Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).

[3] The Smiths' remaining contentions lack merit.

[4] AFFIRMED.

 

FOOTNOTES

 

 

1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

2 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

3 The Smiths do not challenge that portion of the judgment dismissing certain claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

 

END OF FOOTNOTES
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Case Name
    JAMES D. SMITH; DIANA L. SMITH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.
  • Court
    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • Docket
    No. 99-35817
  • Judge
    per curiam
  • Cross-Reference
    James D. Smith, et ux. v. United States; 83 AFTR2d Par. 99-366;

    No. 96-3078-CO (Dec. 22, 1998) (For a summary, see Tax Notes Feb.

    1, 1999; p. 650; for the full text, see Doc 1999-2038 (6 original

    pages) or 1999 TNT 18-11.)
  • Parallel Citation
    238 F.3d 430
    86 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2000-6386
    2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 24080
  • Code Sections
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Index Terms
    collections, abusive, civil damages
    collections, notice and demand
  • Jurisdictions
  • Language
    English
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    Doc 2000-25998 (2 original pages)
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2000 TNT 198-17
Copy RID