Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): is not intertwined with the merits of this case. See Davis ex rel. Davis, 343 F.3d at 1295. The substantíve issue in this case, indeed the subject of the Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief, is whether the Plaintiffs are liable for the civil tax penalties assessed under 26 U.S.C. § 6702(a)(2). This preliminary determination does not require the Court to delve into the substantive, non-jurisdictional provisions of the Internal Revenue Code as codified in Title 26 of the United States Code. Put differently, determining whether § 6330(d)(l)’s filing deadlines were adhered to or proper service effectuated pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 bears no relationship to whether the IRS validly assessed § 6702 penalties against the Plaintiffs. Cf. Gonzalez v. United States, 284 F.3d 281, 287 (1st Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). For purposes of clarity, the Court notes that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint (B) holding that determination of timely filing of complaint under ftca was independent of the merits of plaintiffs ftca claim (C) holding an individual who makes a timely challenge to a judicial officer based on the appointments clause is entitled to a determination of the merits of his claim (D) holding that rule 12b1 is inappropriate avenue of dismissal if jurisdictional allegations are intertwined with merits of plaintiffs ftca claims (E) holding that where plaintiffs claims are timely on the face of the allegations of the complaint a court should strike the affirmative defense of statute of limitations
Output (English): holding that where plaintiffs claims are timely on the face of the allegations of the complaint a court should strike the affirmative defense of statute of limitations