Menu
Tax Notes logo

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Suit Against IRS Revenue Agent

MAR. 4, 2015

Schmidt, William v. U.S.

DATED MAR. 4, 2015
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Case Name
    WILLIAM SCHMIDT, COUNTY PROSECUTOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.
  • Court
    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • Docket
    No. 12-36089
  • Judge
    Per curiam
  • Cross-Reference
    Affirming Schmidt v. United States, No. 2:12-cv-01116 (W.D.

    Wash. 2012).
  • Parallel Citation
    595 Fed. Appx. 720
    115 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1011
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Jurisdictions
  • Language
    English
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    Doc 2015-5454
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2015 TNT 44-9

Schmidt, William v. U.S.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 

 

MEMORANDUM*

 

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District

 

of Washington Marsha J. Pechman, Chief Judge, Presiding

 

 

Submitted February 17, 2015**

 

 

Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Taxpayer William Schmidt appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his action alleging theft and conversion by a revenue agent of the Internal Revenue Service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Orff v. United States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 2004) (questions of sovereign immunity and subject matter jurisdiction); Clamor v. United States, 240 F.3d 1215, 1216-17 (9th Cir. 2001) (certification under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Schmidt's motion to remand because the Attorney General certified that the agent was an employee of the Internal Revenue Service, and was acting within the scope of his employment during the incidents described in Schmidt's complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2); Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225, 231 (2007) ("[C]ertification is conclusive for purposes of removal, i.e., once certification and removal are effected, exclusive competence to adjudicate the case resides in the federal court, and that court may not remand the suit to the state court."); Billings v. United States, 57 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 1995) (Attorney General certification is prima facie evidence that a federal employee was acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the incident).

The district court properly dismissed Schmidt's action because Schmidt failed to show that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity from suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c) (excluding from the Federal Tort Claims Act "[a]ny claim arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax").

AFFIRMED.

 

FOOTNOTES

 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

 

END OF FOOTNOTES
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Case Name
    WILLIAM SCHMIDT, COUNTY PROSECUTOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.
  • Court
    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • Docket
    No. 12-36089
  • Judge
    Per curiam
  • Cross-Reference
    Affirming Schmidt v. United States, No. 2:12-cv-01116 (W.D.

    Wash. 2012).
  • Parallel Citation
    595 Fed. Appx. 720
    115 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1011
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Jurisdictions
  • Language
    English
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    Doc 2015-5454
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2015 TNT 44-9
Copy RID