Логин или email Регистрация Пароль Я забыл пароль


Войти при помощи:

Судебные дела / Зарубежная практика  / United States of America, Appellee, v. James L. Manzer; Beverly J. Manzer, Appellants., United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, No. 03-2666, January 16, 2004

United States of America, Appellee, v. James L. Manzer; Beverly J. Manzer, Appellants., United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, No. 03-2666, January 16, 2004

24.06.2008  

United States of America, Appellee, v. James L. Manzer; Beverly J. Manzer, Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2666

January 16, 2004

Unpublished Opinion

Appeal from the United States District Court for the ═ District of Nebraska.

[UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: November 28, 2003

Filed: January 16, 2004

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James and Beverly Manzer appeal the District Court's 1 order approving an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) levy upon the Manzers' principal residence. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' submissions on appeal, we affirm.

**********

1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

**********

In January 2003 the government petitioned the District Court for approval of a proposed IRS levy upon the Manzers' principal residence, as required by 26 U.S.C. ╖ 6334(e)(1), because the Manzers were indebted to the United States for $37,770.02 in unpaid income taxes, unemployment taxes, penalties, and interest. Following a hearing, the District Court approved the levy, and the government levied on the Manzers' residence and sold the property to a third party in July 2003.

Initially, we conclude that the sale did not moot this appeal, because the 180-day redemption period has not yet run. See 26 U.S.C. ╖ 6337(b)(1). Upon de novo review, we also find that the District Court correctly approved the IRS levy. The Manzers had the burden of proving that the IRS assessments were incorrect, that the tax liabilities were not owed, or that there were other means of collecting those liabilities, cf . Page v. Comm'r , 823 F.2d 1263, 1272 (8th Cir. 1987), cert . denied , 484 U.S. 1043 (1988), and having received adequate procedural due process, see Post v. Harper , 980 F.2d 491, 493 (8th Cir. 1992), they failed to make such a showing. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Разместить:

Вы также можете   зарегистрироваться  и/или  авторизоваться  

   

Легкая судьба электронных документов в суде

Бухгалтерские документы отражают важную информацию о хозяйственной деятельности организации.

Суфиянова Татьяна
Суфиянова Татьяна

Российский налоговый портал

Как открыть для себя «Личный кабинет налогоплательщика»?

Если у вас нет еще доступа в ваш «Личный кабинет», то советую сделать