Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02237/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02237-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Recovery of IRS Tax

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

GOLDEN WEST HOLDINGS TRUST,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2237-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Permit Sale of Seized Property (Dkt. 46).

Defendants request entry of an order permitting the sale of automobiles under seizure in this

case, to end the accrual of expenses in storing and preserving the automobiles. In the

alternative, Defendants request that the Court find that the decision to sell property is within

the discretion of the Internal Revenue Service and that the Court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin

the sale. In response, Plaintiff contends that no order is necessary because Defendants’

request to sell the automobiles has been agreed to. Plaintiff requests that, should the Court

issue an order, the order reflect a reserve price to be included at auction of the automobiles

(Dkts. 47, 48).

The parties have not presented documentation of an agreement to sell the automobiles

absent a court order to sell. Plaintiff has not presented any evidence to support his contention

that a reserve price must be included at the sale of personal property, and Defendants have

represented that they will make all reasonable efforts to maximize the recovery of value in

the sale (Dkt. 46 at 4). However, the issue of whether any legal or statutory restrictions apply

Case 2:05-cv-02237-SMM Document 49 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

to the sale price has not been fully developed. Therefore the parties shall have fifteen days

from the date of this Order to brief the Court as to whether any legal or statutory restrictions

apply to the sale price of the automobiles. Such briefing shall be limited to three pages per

side. If neither party submits briefing on this issue, the Court will summarily grant

Defendants’ Motion to Permit Sale of Seized Property.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the parties fifteen (15) days from the date of

sale to brief the Court regarding whether any legal or statutory restrictions apply to the sale

price of the automobiles, in memoranda not to exceed three (3) pages.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties do not submit such briefing within

fifteen days the Court will summarily grant Defendants’ Motion to Permit Sale of Seized

Property.

DATED this 22nd day of January, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-02237-SMM Document 49 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 2