Reaser v. U.S.

4 Citing cases

  1. Portsmouth Ambulance, Inc. v. United States

    756 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2014)   Cited 17 times
    Affirming lower court's dismissal of § 7433 claims filed after lapse of the two-year statute of limitations

    4. Applicability of MunacoIn a final challenge to the dismissal of their refund claim, the plaintiffs argue that the district court's reliance on our prior opinion in Munaco was misplaced and, instead, that the district judge should have adopted the reasoning of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio set out in Reaser v. United States, 731 F.Supp.2d 681 (N.D.Ohio 2010). However, a decision of a district court is not binding on us, especially if such a district court ruling conflicts with existing circuit precedent.

  2. Streeter v. United States

    150 F. Supp. 3d 82 (D. Mass. 2015)   Cited 3 times

    This regulation presumes that a payment made by a third party to remove a lien is a part of their application for a certificate of discharge—an application which Streeter had sought twice and corresponded with the IRS regarding numerous times—to prevent leaving a third party without a remedy. Compare Portsmouth Ambulance, Inc. v. United States , 756 F.3d 494, 501–02 (6th Cir.2014) (affirming dismissal of refund action where the IRS issued a certificate of release instead of a certificate of discharge because plaintiff made payments to the IRS, but failed to request a certificate of discharge) with Reaser v. United States , 731 F.Supp.2d 681, 683–84 (N.D.Ohio 2010) (allowing refund claim under Section 1346(a)(1) where the IRS issued a certificate of release when plaintiff posted a cash bond but had not requested a certificate of discharge).There is a line of cases, as the United States notes, denying a third party's refund claim brought under Sections 1346(a)(1) and 7422(a) where the third party failed to follow the procedures set forth in Section 6325(b)(4) to obtain a certificate of discharge or initiate a timely refund action under Section 7426(a)(4) once a certificate was obtained.

  3. Little Italy Oceanside Invs., LLC v. United States

    Case No. 14-cv-10217 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 14, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    Little Italy contends that it is not barred from maintaining its Refund Claim under § 1346(a)(4). Little Italy relies on Reaser v. United States, 731 F.Supp.2d 681 (N.D. Ohio 2010), in support of its argument. (See ECF #17 at 17-18, Pg. ID 107-08.)

  4. Poplawski v. United States

    Case No. 2:12-cv-1096 (S.D. Ohio May. 5, 2014)

    Because of these flaws, the Plaintiff failed to administratively exhaust his damages claim. Cf. Hoogerheide v. I.R.S., 637 F.3d 634, 639 (6th Cir. 2011) (dismissing plaintiff's claims where administrative claims (1) were not addressed to the Area Director, Attn: Compliance Technical Support Manager of the area in which the plaintiff resided; (2) did not provide a dollar amount for his claims; and (3) did not mention a claim for damages against the IRS); Reaser v. United States, 731 F. Supp. 2d 681, 684 (N.D. Ohio 2010) (dismissing plaintiff's claims where administrative claim (1) was not addressed to the correct IRS official; (2) did not include the requisite taxpayer contact information; and (3) did not include the dollar amount of the claim). In addition, the copy of the Plaintiff's administrative claim is unsigned.