Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Danoff v. United States

324 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (C.D. Cal. 2004)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Danoff v. United States

21 Citing cases

  1. Blankenship v. Dep't of Treasury

    Case No. 1:21-cv-00581-NONE-SAB (E.D. Cal. May. 12, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    The terms of the United States' consent to be sued, when granted, circumscribe the court's jurisdiction." Danoff v. United States, 324 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1091 (C.D. Cal. 2004), aff'd, 135 F.App'x 950 (9th Cir. 2005); see United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 602 (1990) (The United States as sovereign is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued.)

  2. Mays v. Internal Revenue Serv.

    Case No. 1:19-cv-00344-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    The terms of the United States' consent to be sued, when granted, circumscribe the court's jurisdiction." Danoff v. United States, 324 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1091 (C.D. Cal. 2004), aff'd, 135 F.App'x 950 (9th Cir. 2005); see United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 602 (1990) (The United States as sovereign is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued.)

  3. Lovo v. Internal Revenue Serv.

    1:22-cv-00220-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal. May. 5, 2022)   Cited 2 times
    Concluding that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims for EIPs because the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with the IRS under 26 U.S.C. § 7422

    , the district court is without jurisdiction over the claim for a refund. Danoff v. U.S., 324 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1092 (C.D. Cal. 2004).

  4. Ross v. Bolin

    1:21-cv-01753-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2022)

    Therefore, unless the taxpayer has “duly filed” a claim with the IRS for a refund of Federal taxes, the district court is without jurisdiction over the claim for a refund. Danoff v. U.S., 324 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1092 (C.D. Cal. 2004).

  5. Candor v. United States

    1 F. Supp. 3d 1076 (S.D. Cal. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    Just as critical, “[i]t is hornbook law that jurisdictional requirements, such as the time period for filing refund claims, cannot be waived, altered, or amended by an IRS employee.” Danoff v. United States, 324 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1100 (C.D.Cal.2004). It is another question, however, whether by Pobre's alleged assurances to Candor the United States can be equitably estopped from raising the defense of sovereign immunity.

  6. BLOM v. U.S.

    Civil Action No. 05-2383 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 16, 2006)

    In the same context, a taxpayer is not entitled to receive statutory interest on a tax "deposit," whereas she is entitled to receive statutory interest on a tax "payment." See Danoff v. United States, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1097 (C.D. Cal. 2004). See also Boyd v. United States, 439 F. Supp. 907, 908 (E.D. Pa. 1977) ("[T]he Government is required to pay interest on overpayments but not on deposits.").

  7. Taylor v. IRS

    1:22-cv-01246-SAB (E.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2023)

    Further, this statute of limitations is not tolled due to equitable principals. See Danoff v. U.S., 324 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1099 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2004) (“courts uniformly have held that equitable principles, including the doctrine of equitable estoppel, cannot toll statutes of limitation in tax refund suits”) (citing U.S. v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347, 348 (1997) and collecting cases).

  8. Taylor v. IRS

    1:22-cv-01246-SAB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2023)

    Further, this statute of limitations is not tolled due to equitable principals. See Danoff v. U.S., 324 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1099 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2004) (“courts uniformly have held that equitable principles, including the doctrine of equitable estoppel, cannot toll statutes of limitation in tax refund suits”)

  9. Miranda v. Dep't of the Treasury Internal Revenue Serv.

    1:21-cv-1763 JLT HBK (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2023)

    Thus, “[a] taxpayer's failure to file an administrative claim within the time periods imposed by statute divests the district court of jurisdiction over an action for a refund or credit.” Omohundro, 300 F.3d at 1066-67; Danoff v. United States, 324 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1092 (C.D. Cal. 2004).

  10. Sierra v. Internal Revenue Serv.

    1:22-cv-01226-SAB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2022)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that prior to bringing claims against the United States for failing to disburse stimulus checks authorized by the CARES Act, a plaintiff must follow the procedures applicable to those seeking duly owed tax refunds

    Thus, “[a] taxpayer's failure to file an administrative claim within the time periods imposed by statute divests the district court of jurisdiction over an action for a refund or credit.” Omohundro, 300 F.3d at 1066-67; Danoff v. U.S., 324 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1092 (C.D. Cal. 2004).