X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decisionClick here for the full text of this decision FACTS:EC Term of Years Trust appeals from the district court’s dismissal of its refund claim under 28 U.S.C. �1346. After assessing federal income taxes, penalties and interest against Elmer and Dorothy Cullers, the trust’s creators, the Internal Revenue Service filed transferee tax liens against the trust for the Cullers’s tax liability. Ultimately, the IRS seized the total amount owed from an account created by the trust for the purpose of dispatching the Cullers’ debt. The trust then sought to recover the funds under 26 U.S.C. �7426(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. �1346(a)(1). Because the trust brought suit after the statute of limitations had run on the wrongful levy action under �7426, the district court dismissed that claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trust then brought suit a second time, again seeking a refund under �1346(a)(1). After determining that the earlier decision had not been a decision on the merits for the purposes of res judicata, the district court directly addressed the question of whether a wrongful levy claim under �7426 remained the “sole and exclusive” remedy for third parties such as the trust in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527 (1995), which allowed a third party who had removed a lien on her property by paying the tax liability of another individual to bring a refund action under �1346(a)(1). The district court distinguished Williams and held that a wrongful levy action remained the exclusive remedy for the trust and dismissed the trust’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trust appeals. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court disagrees with appellants that United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527 (1995), must be read to allow litigants who could bring suit under �7426 also to bring suit under �1346. The Williams decision does not suggest that a refund action under �1346 is available in addition to a wrongful levy action under �7426. The U.S. Supreme Court specifically noted that Williams could not have brought a claim under �7426, and would have wholly lacked a remedy in the absence of a claim under �1346. The Williams opinion can fairly be read to apply when a remedy under �7426 is unavailable, a situation that does not exist in the instant case. To construe Williams to allow an alternative remedy under �1346, with its longer statute of limitations period, see 26 U.S.C. ��6511(a), 6532(a)(1), would undermine the surety provided by the clear avenue to recovery under �7426. Several circuits have maintained that �7426 is the exclusive remedy for third party wrongful levy claims. The only exception is the 9th Circuit, which has permitted third parties whose bank accounts were levied to bring refund actions under �1346. The court concludes that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Williams does not alter the long-standing rule regarding the exclusivity of the remedy available under �7426. When �7426 is available to an individual, then it is his sole and exclusive remedy. OPINION:Garza, J.; Reavley, Garza and Benavides, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.