From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bell v. Gray

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Covington Division
Feb 9, 1960
191 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Ky. 1960)

Summary

In Bell v. Gray, 191 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Ky. 1960), aff'd, 287 F.2d 410 (6th Cir. 1960), the court dismissed a tax refund action because the complaint failed to allege that the claim for refund was filed within the statutory period.

Summary of this case from Lamb v. United States

Opinion

No. 901.

February 9, 1960.

Goodman Goodman, Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiffs.

Henry J. Cook, U.S. Atty., Jean L. Auxier, Lexington, Ky., Asst. U.S. Atty., for defendants.


The statement of plaintiffs' counsel in his brief that this is a court of general jurisdiction should be corrected. Every federal court is a court of limited, not of general, jurisdiction. All presumptions are against the jurisdiction of such a court, so that the facts disclosing the jurisdiction must affirmatively appear upon the record. Turner v. Bank of North America, 1799, 4 Dall. 8, 1 L.Ed. 718; McNally v. Jackson, D.C., 7 F.2d 373; Swanson v. United States, 9 Cir., 224 F.2d 795, 15 Alaska 608.

The motion to dismiss the complaint should be sustained.

The complaint fails to allege that the claims for refund were filed within the statutory period. This is a jurisdictional fact and since it does not appear anywhere in the record the claim is barred. 26 U.S.C.A. § 322(b)(1). Periods of limitation are established to cut off rights, justifiable or not, that might otherwise be asserted and such periods of limitation must be strictly adhered to by the courts. Kavanagh v. Noble, 332 U.S. 535, 68 S.Ct. 235, 92 L.Ed. 150.

The statutes fixing these limitations are not statutes of limitations in the usual sense of the word, but are conditions under which the United States has consented to be sued and are therefore substantive jurisdictional requirements which the United States need not plead as a defense, but which must be alleged and proven by the taxpayer. United States v. Chicago Golf Club, 7 Cir., 84 F.2d 914, 106 A.L.R. 209; Gross v. United States, D.C., 130 F. Supp. 441; Sullivan v. United States, D.C., 113 F. Supp. 749.

26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C. 1954) § 7421(a) has been long construed to withdraw from the courts the power to enjoin or restrain the collection of taxes where the challenge is to the validity or applicability of the tax. United States Mutual Benefit Association v. Welch, 6 Cir., 268 F.2d 201.

It also appears from the complaint that the government has filed liens to protect the collection of the taxes. That fact makes the United States of America an indispensable party on the claim for equitable relief. Rosner v. McGinnes, D.C., 167 F. Supp. 44; Sidbury v. Gill, D.C., 102 F. Supp. 483.

An order dismissing the complaint at the cost of the plaintiffs is this day entered.


Summaries of

Bell v. Gray

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Covington Division
Feb 9, 1960
191 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Ky. 1960)

In Bell v. Gray, 191 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Ky. 1960), aff'd, 287 F.2d 410 (6th Cir. 1960), the court dismissed a tax refund action because the complaint failed to allege that the claim for refund was filed within the statutory period.

Summary of this case from Lamb v. United States
Case details for

Bell v. Gray

Case Details

Full title:Margaret BELL et al., Plaintiffs, v. William GRAY, District Director of…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Covington Division

Date published: Feb 9, 1960

Citations

191 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Ky. 1960)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. United States

Since the right to refund can be asserted only because of the existence of the statute, strict compliance…

Plummer v. Summe

Here, we have no interruption, but a continuing relationship between Mott Plummer and Sara Summe. Summe cites…