Stockham v. United States of America

Filing 16

ORDER REGARDING NOVEMBER 9, 2017 HEARING. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on November 8, 2017. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BOYD LEE STOCKHAM, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

13
14

Docket No. 10

Defendant.

11
12

ORDER REGARDING NOVEMBER 9,
2017 HEARING

v.

9
10

Case No. 17-cv-03982-EMC

At the November 9, 2017 hearing on Defendant United States of America’s Motion to
Dismiss, the parties should be prepared to discuss the following issues:
1.

Is there any reason why the procedure for requesting and obtaining a certificate of

15

discharge pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6325(b)(4) and 26 U.S.C. § 7426(a)(4) was not a “realistic

16

alternative,” United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 529 (1995), for Plaintiffs?

17

2.

Do Plaintiffs claim the IRS, in seeking to dismiss their complaint, should be

18

estopped from asserting Plaintiffs’ failure to obtain a certificate of discharge? See April 2017

19

Notice of Overdue Taxes, attached to Compl. as Ex. D (stating a certificate of release of federal

20

tax lien will be filed upon payment without mentioning right to request certificate of discharge).

21

3.

Defendant should be prepared to explain how a property is “subject to” a lien under

22

§ 6325(b)(4) if the lien may not be “valid” under § 6323(a) because it may not have been properly

23

noticed before Plaintiffs purchased the property. See 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a) (a tax lien “shall not be

24
25
26
27
28

valid as against any purchaser . . . until notice thereof . . . has been filed by the Secretary”); 26
C.F.R. § 301.6323(a)-1 (“The lien by section 6321 is not valid against any purchaser . . . until a
notice of lien is filed . . . .”); 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a) (only a property owner whose property is
“subject to” a tax lien may request or obtain a certificate of discharge).
4.

Did Plaintiffs file, or attempt to file, any administrative claim for a refund or

1
2

otherwise make any sort of administrative objection to the lien(s) prior to filing suit?
5.

What is the prejudice to Defendant, if any, from permitting Plaintiffs to proceed

3

with a Section 7426 claim within 120 days of obtaining a certificate of release (as opposed to a

4

certificate of discharge)?

5
6
7

6.

What meaning do the parties ascribe to the phrase, “No other action may be

brought by such person for such a determination,” 26 U.S.C. § 7426(a)(4)?
7.

What is the parties’ explanation for the discrepancy between the total amount

8

demanded in the April 2017 Notice of Taxes Due ($145,765.05) and allegedly paid by Plaintiffs,

9

and the sum of the 2011 and 2015 liens according to the corresponding certificates of release

10

($83,608.24)?

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 8, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2