Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Martin v. United States

September 22, 2006

MAURITA MARTIN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
UNITED STATES, DEFENDANT.



MEMORANDUM OPINION

The United States moves to dismiss the complaint of Maurita Martin and David Pennington, who allege that they are entitled to damages*fn1 in connection with the collection of federal taxes. Plaintiffs allege that the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), beginning in tax year 1996, recklessly, intentionally, and negligently disregarded provisions of the Internal Revenue Code ("Code") and its regulations. The Government argues that because the Plaintiffs did not exhaust administrative remedies, the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction to consider the Plaintiffs' suit and that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs assert that they need not exhaust administrative remedies if those remedies are inadequate or futile. After careful review of the Plaintiffs' Complaint and their opposition to the Government's motion to dismiss, and recognizing that Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se in this matter, the Court finds that the Complaint must be dismissed because the Plaintiffs did not exhaust administrative remedies with respect to their claim for damages.

I. BACKGROUND

The Plaintiffs filed suit on December 30, 2005, pursuant to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights ("TBOR"), 26 U.S.C. §7433, seeking damages for reckless, intentional, and negligent actions by the IRS.*fn2 They allege that, beginning in 1996, the IRS violated various sections of the Code by:

(1) failing to assess taxes Plaintiffs allegedly owed;

(2) failing to assess taxes in the time and manner set by the Secretary of the Treasury;

(3) failing to record an assessment of their taxes;

(4) failing to provide them with records of tax assessment upon request;

(5) attempting to collect taxes in amounts greater than the amount stated on records of assessment;

(6) "abrogating plaintiff(s) [sic] guaranteed availability of an installment agreement";

(7) failing to send Plaintiffs a 90-day notice of deficiency letter;

(8) failing to notify them of the deadline to file a petition in the Tax Court;

(9) filing an "invalid and unlawful Notice of Tax Lien" against them;

(10) failing to release tax liens "when it became obvious that said lien(s) was/were invalid and unlawful";

(11) failing to refund all "unassessed taxes" upon written request by the Plaintiffs to the United States Treasurer;

(12) failing to "suspend interest and penalties for reason that defendant has not specifically stated the amount of, and the basis for[,] the liability ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.