From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gardner v. Peters

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 27, 2008
280 F. App'x 602 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 06-16647.

Argued and Submitted May 15, 2008.

Filed May 27, 2008.

Steven D. Keist, Glendale, AZ, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

David I. Pincus, Gretchen M. Wolfinger, Tax Division/Appellate Section, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-02852-NVW.

Before: KLEINFELD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and MILLS, District Judge.

The Honorable Richard Mills, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.


MEMORANDUM

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

Fredric Gardner, Elizabeth Gardner, and Beth-el Aram Ministries appeal the district court's grant of Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provided sufficient notice to the Gardners' last known address. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330; Williams v. IRS, 935 F.2d 1066, 1067 (9th Cir. 1991). The Gardners did not request a hearing within the statutory period, thus they were only entitled to an "equivalent hearing." See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(a)(3)(B); 26 C.F.R. § 301.6330-10). Therefore, the district court did not err in finding that the Gardners submitted an untimely request for a Collections Due Process (CDP) hearing, and therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the Decision Letter issued by the IRS. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(2); 26 C.F.R. § 301.6330-1(i)(2), "QA-16".

The Gardners were not entitled to injunctive relief because (1) they were not entitled to a CDP hearing, see 26 U.S.C. § 6330(e)(1), and (2) they were unable to show the government would not ultimately prevail, see Enochs v. Williams Packing Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962).

Beth-el Aram Ministries did not state a claim for wrongful levy because the levy was placed on property in which the Gardners had an interest at the time the lien arose. See Sessler v. United States, 7 F.3d 1449, 1451 (9th Cir. 1993); 26 C.F.R. § 301.7426-1(b).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Gardner v. Peters

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 27, 2008
280 F. App'x 602 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Gardner v. Peters

Case Details

Full title:Fredric A. GARDNER; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Sharon PETERS; et…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 27, 2008

Citations

280 F. App'x 602 (9th Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

Gardner v. Internal Revenue Serv.

Cell Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lash Grp. Inc., 586 F.3d 1204, 1212 (9th Cir. 2009). Gardner v. Peters, 2006 WL…