Maehr v. Comm'r

5 Citing cases

  1. Maehr v. United States

    Civil Action No. 18-cv-02273-PAB-NRN (D. Colo. Aug. 1, 2019)

    The Court further notes that Mr. Maehr's other attempts to thwart the IRS's investigation into and collection of his unpaid taxes have failed. For example, in Maehr v. Comm'r, 641 F. App'x 813 (10th Cir. 2016), a case where Mr. Maehr sought to quash IRS summons issued to third parties, the Tenth Circuit, after observing that he "did not pay his federal income taxes from 2003 to 2006 and still owes the IRS the amount of his unpaid liabilities for these years," stated: [Mr.

  2. Gaetano v. United States

    994 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2021)   Cited 45 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Other circuit courts have concluded that § 7609(c)(2) delineates exceptions (or conditions) to the United States’ sovereign immunity waiver. See, e.g. , Haber , 823 F.3d at 751 (holding that under the exception in § 7609(c)(2)(D), the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for challenges to any summons "issued in aid of the collection" of an assessment); Maehr v. Comm'r , 641 F. App'x 813, 815 (10th Cir. 2016) (same); Taylor , 292 F. App'x at 386-87 (concluding that § 7609(c)(2)(E) is an exception to the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity); see also Upton , 104 F.3d at 545, 547 (explaining that, before the 1998 amendments, the summoned party's status as a "third-party recordkeeper" is a prerequisite to the sovereign immunity waiver in § 7609 ). Although we held in Clay v. United States that compliance with § 7609(b) ’s 20-day period to file a petition to quash is a "condition of the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity," Clay is not on point here because the filing deadline is not one of the exceptions listed in subsection (c)(2).

  3. Maehr v. United States

    No. 19-1335 (10th Cir. Jul. 29, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Maehr "has continuously utilized the judicial system . . . to try to avoid paying his . . . tax liabilities [for tax years 2003-2006] even though the courts have repeatedly concluded that his claims are without merit." Maehr v. Comm'r, 641 F. App'x 813, 816 (10th Cir. 2016). This appeal stems from Maehr's attempt to re-litigate the amount of his 2003-2006 tax liabilities.

  4. Kaminski v. United States

    21-mc-0043 (WMW/TNL) (D. Minn. Apr. 7, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    The Second, Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have held that the exemption contained in Section 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) operates as an exception to the United States's waiver of sovereign immunity as to petitions to quash. See Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 751 (2d Cir. 2016); Gaetano v. United States, 994 F.3d 501, 509 (6th Cir. 2021); Barmes v. United States, 199 F.3d 386, 388 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[I]f notice is not mandated, neither is a petition to quash authorized.”); Maehr v. Comm'r, 641 Fed.Appx. 813, 815 (10th Cir. 2016). 3 The Ninth Circuit, on the other hand, has held that a petitioner lacks standing to petition to quash a summons issued pursuant to Section 7609(c)(2)(D)(i).

  5. HP Distribution, LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv.

    Case No. 16-0219 (D. Kan. Oct. 11, 2017)

    The government does not waive its sovereign immunity under § 7609(c). See Maehr v. C.I.R., 641 F. App'x 813, 815 (10th Cir. 2016). Whether plaintiff can bring this motion to quash against the Buchholz summons, and whether this court has jurisdiction over the motion, depends on the provision under which plaintiff brings its motion.