INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE v. MURPHY

Filing 14

PROCEDURAL ORDER FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON BANKRUPTCY COURTS DENIAL OF 60(b) MOTION By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (nrg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
APPELLANT
V.

WILLIAM CHARLES MURPHY,
APPELLEE

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 2:14-CV-340-DBH
(BANKRUPTCY NO. 09-2042)

PROCEDURAL ORDER FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON
BANKRUPTCY COURT’S DENIAL OF 60(b) MOTION
The parties have brought to this court’s attention that they have not
waived oral argument, and the Clerk’s Office shall schedule argument
accordingly.

I believe that the facts and legal arguments are adequately

presented with respect to the request for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), Fed.
R. Bankr. P. 8019(b)(3), but I will not prevent the lawyers from addressing the
court on the topic. However, I do request oral argument directed to the Tax AntiInjunction Act.

Particularly, the parties should be prepared to discuss the

applicability of In re Energy Res. Co., Inc., 871 F.2d 223 (1st Cir. 1989) aff’d sub
nom. United States v. Energy Res. Co., 495 U.S. 545 (1990); In re Szwyd, 408
B.R. 547 (D. Mass. 2009); In re Kare Kemical, Inc., 935 F.2d 243 (11th Cir. 1991);
In re Deer Park, Inc., 10 F.3d 1478 (9th Cir. 1993); and United States v.
Pepperman, 976 F.2d 123 (3d Cir. 1992); in addition to any other cases that bear
on the application of the Tax Anti-Injunction Act in this case.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE