Dietz v. Trustco Bank

6 Citing cases

  1. Clavizzao v. U.S.

    706 F. Supp. 2d 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 15 times
    Rejecting the argument that a defendant bank had a duty to "insure that plaintiff ... were afforded proper due process rights ... before money is taken" because "[s]ection 6332(e) makes clear that [the bank] has no such duty"

    Section 6332(e) has been "consistently interpreted to be valid" and "unambiguously . . . protect[s] parties who comply with an IRS notice of levy from facing liability." Dietz v. Trustco Bank, 572 F.Supp.2d 296, 298 (N.D.N.Y 2008) (citations omitted); see also Schiff v. Simon Schuster, Inc., 780 F.2d 210, 212 (2d. Cir. 1985) ("Compliance with the obligation to honor the levy extinguishes liability to the claimant of the property."); Smith v. Kitchen, 156 F.3d 1025, 1029 (10th Cir. 1997) ("[S]ection 6332(e) . . . clearly bars money damages against a person who has complied with an IRS levy."). Plaintiffs base their claims against HSBC on that institution's execution of the IRS levy.

  2. Buczek v. O'Carroll

    15-CV-273S (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    "Section 6332(e) has been 'consistently interpreted to be valid' and 'unambiguously...protect[s] parties who comply with an IRS notice of levy from facing liability." Dietz v. Trustco Bank, 572 F.Supp.2d 296, 298 (N.D.N.Y. 2008).

  3. Kline v. U.S. Bank

    8:14-CV-363 (D. Neb. Jan. 21, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    As a result, courts have uniformly held that § 6332(e) insulates banks and bank employees from liability for surrendering depositor funds to the Treasury in compliance with a notice of levy. E.g., Breton, 2013 WL 1788536, at *4; Brunwasser v. Black, No. 11-CV-14, 2011 WL 284126, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 26, 2011); Lanier, 2010 WL 1141267, at *4-5; Clavizzao, 706 F. Supp. 2d at 349; Dietz v. Trustco Bank, 572 F. Supp. 2d 296, 298-99 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); Allen v. IRS, 624 F. Supp. 2d 689, 695 (N.D. Ohio 2008); Eckwortzel, 561 F. Supp. 2d at 1153; Jones v. Bass, 343 F. Supp. 2d 1066, 1070-71 (D. Wyo. 2004). The Court reaches the same result here.

  4. Holmes v. Brooks

    14-CV-357-A (W.D.N.Y. Jul. 8, 2014)

    See Nat'l Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. at 721 ("If the custodian honors the levy, he is 'discharged from any obligation or liability to the delinquent taxpayer with respect to such property or rights to property arising from such surrender or payment.'") (quoting I.R.C. § 6332(d)); Biegeleisen v. Ross, 164 F.3d 617 at *1 (2d Cir. 1998) (table decision) (holding that I.R.C. § 6332 "protects [a bank employee] for liability to [the taxpayer] for honoring the levy"); Dietz v. Trustco Bank, 572 F. Supp. 2d 296, 298 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) ("[I.R.C. § 6332] is consistently interpreted to be valid and, as it unambiguously states, it serves to protect parties who comply with an IRS notice of levy from facing liability."). The Plaintiff's argument that the IRS's Notice of Levy was insufficient to levy on his earnings is premised entirely on the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and caselaw interpreting that outdated version of the Code.

  5. Taylor v. Taylor

    3:12-CV-0037 (LEK/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2013)   Cited 5 times
    Applying same standard

    Claims like Mr. Taylor's ordinarily are barred by the United States's sovereign immunity and the Anti-Injunction Act. See 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) (providing that, with certain exceptions, "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed"); Perry v. Wright, No. 12 Civ. 0721, 2013 WL 950921, at *4-5, *8-9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2013); Dietz v. Trustco Bank, 572 F. Supp. 2d 296, 299 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (Kahn, J.). Mr. Taylor has not pointed to any waiver of sovereign immunity or exception to the Anti-Injunction Act necessary for the Court to have jurisdiction in this case.

  6. Gust v. US Airways

    CIVIL CASE NO. 1:11cv133 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 16, 2011)   Cited 2 times

    "Section 6332(e) has been 'consistently interpreted to be valid' and 'unambiguously ... protect[s] parties who comply with an IRS notice of levy from facing liability.'" Id. (quoting Dietz v. Trustco Bank, 572 F.Supp.2d 296, 298 (N.D.N.Y. 2008)); McNeil v. Whipple, 720 F.Supp.2d 73, 76 (D.D.C. 2010). The "statute is not limited to levies which survive challenges to their validity."