- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
United States v. Baker
Case Summary: United States v. Norman R. Baker, 166 F. Supp. 415 (D. Md. 1958)
Factual and Procedural Background
The United States brought this action under 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1340 and 1345 to reduce to judgment certain assessments of income taxes and excise-wagering taxes, including penalties and interest. Defendant Norman R. Baker moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion to dismiss asserted, among other points, that the complaint was unnecessary and duplicative because notices of liens for the amounts assessed had previously been filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Upper Marlboro, Maryland. The government’s complaint alleged that the action was authorized and requested by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and was brought under the direction of the Attorney General, citing 26 U.S.C.A. § 7401 and 26 U.S.C.A. 6502(a) (formerly 26 U.S.C.A. § 276(c)). The District Court considered the motion and issued the opinion summarized here.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the complaint must be dismissed as "unnecessary and duplicative" because notices of liens for the assessments had been filed in the state court.
- Whether the government, having filed notices of liens, is precluded from also bringing a judicial action at law to reduce tax assessments to judgment (i.e., whether an election of remedies barred the action).
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- The complaint is unnecessary and duplicative because notices of liens for the assessed amounts were already filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Prince George's County, Maryland.
- The government must choose between filing a lien or bringing an action at law and, by filing the liens, has elected that remedy and may not proceed with the action.
Plaintiff's (United States') Position as Reflected in the Opinion
- The complaint was authorized and requested by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and is brought under the direction of the Attorney General, pursuant to 26 U.S.C.A. § 7401 and 26 U.S.C.A. 6502(a) (formerly 26 U.S.C.A. § 276(c)).
- Implicitly, the government contends it may pursue the action notwithstanding the prior filing of notices of liens; the court cites authority supporting the proposition that the Commissioner may use multiple collection remedies.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| United States v. Havner, D.C.S.D.Iowa, 21 F.Supp. 985, 988, reversed on other grounds, 8 Cir., 101 F.2d 161 | Quoted principle: "Under the general taxation statutes the Commissioner of Internal Revenue had several weapons that might be used by him in attempting to enforce the collection of taxes and the fact that he had used some of them lends no support to a reasoning that he was deprived from using other lawful means for the collection." | The court relied on this authority to reject defendant's contention that filing liens alone constituted an exclusive election of remedies barring the government's action. |
| United States v. Plisco, D.C., 166 F.Supp. 414 | This opinion was cited as an additional supporting authority. | The court referenced it as further support for the proposition that the government may utilize more than one lawful means to collect taxes. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first observed that most of the allegations in the defendant's motion to dismiss raised questions of fact that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. On the legal contention that the complaint was "unnecessary and duplicitas" because liens had been filed, the court found the defendant's position unsupported by reason or authority. The complaint affirmatively alleged statutory authorization and proper initiation of the action by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Attorney General (citing 26 U.S.C.A. § 7401 and 26 U.S.C.A. 6502(a)/§ 276(c)). The court quoted United States v. Havner for the proposition that the Commissioner may employ multiple collection mechanisms and that using some remedies does not preclude use of other lawful means. The court also noted United States v. Plisco as an additional supporting opinion. Based on these points, the court concluded the election-of-remedies argument did not justify dismissal.
Holding and Implications
DENIED. The defendant's motion to dismiss was denied.
Implications: The immediate effect of the decision is that the government's complaint was not dismissed and remains pending; the defendant's contention that the prior filing of notices of liens constituted an exclusive election of remedies was rejected by the court. The opinion does not announce or establish a new broad precedent beyond applying the cited authorities to deny dismissal.
Leon H. A. Pierson, U.S. Atty., and Robert E. Cahill, Asst. U.S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.
H. Clifford Allder, Chevy Chase, Md., for defendant.
THOMSEN, Chief Judge.
Defendant has moved to dismiss this action brought by the United States under 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1340 and 1345 to reduce to judgment certain assessments of income taxes and excise-wagering taxes, with penalties and interest.
Most of the allegations in the motion to dismiss raise questions of fact which cannot be disposed of on such a motion. But defendant also contends that the complaint is 'unnecessary and duplicitas' [sic] because it shows that notices of liens for the amounts assessed had previously been filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Prince George's County, Upper Marlboro, Maryland. His counsel argues that the government may either file a lien or file an action at law, but not both, and has made its election by filing the liens. This contention is supported neither by reason nor authority.
The complaint alleges that the action is authorized and requested by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury, and is brought under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States. 26 U.S.C.A. § 7401. See also sec. 6502(a), I.R.C.1954, 26 U.S.C.A. 6502(a), formerly sec. 276(c), I.R.C.1939, 26 U.S.C.A. § 276(c). 'Under the general taxation statutes the Commissioner of Internal Revenue had several weapons that might be used by him in attempting to enforce the collection of taxes and the fact that he had used some of them lends no support to a reasoning that he was deprived from using other lawful means for the collection.' United States v. Havner, D.C.S.D.Iowa, 21 F.Supp. 985, 988, reversed on other grounds, 8 Cir., 101 F.2d 161. See also opinion in United States v. Plisco, D.C., 166 F.Supp. 414.
The motion is hereby denied.
Alert