Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03589/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03589-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS MAYERON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AUGUSTE ROBERTS, an individual, and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants. /

AUGUSTE ROBERTS,

Counterclaimant,

 v.

DENNIS MAYERON,

Counterdefendant. /

AUGUSTE ROBERTS,

Cross-claimant,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Cross-defendant. /

No. C-06-03589 EDL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brought this action regarding a property dispute arising

out of a federal tax lien sale. Plaintiff initially filed this action against Auguste Roberts who was the

successful bidder on property seized by the United States Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and

offered for sale at an IRS Auction. In an Order dated September 14, 2006, in response to Defendant

Case 3:06-cv-03589-EDL Document 63 Filed 07/12/07 Page 1 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Roberts’ motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party, or, alternatively, to compel

joinder of a necessary party, this Court found that the United States is a necessary party to this

action and ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint naming the United States as a defendant. 

Accordingly, on October 6, 2006, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint naming Roberts and the

United States as Defendants. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint states two claims for declaratory

relief: one for quiet title; the other for unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff claims title to property located at 850 Athens Avenue in Oakland since 1983. Am.

Compl. ¶ 6. Defendant Roberts also claims an interest in that property as a result of the IRS tax lien

sale on March 10, 2006. Id. ¶ 4. Plaintiff alleges that the IRS had no authority to conduct the sale

due to various failures to comply with certain notice requirements and, therefore, the sale is void. 

Id. ¶¶ 10, 11. Plaintiff further alleges that the IRS “made arbitrary and unauthorized price

reductions of the property” which render the sale void, and also support a finding of unjust

enrichment because Roberts’ purchase price for the property was approximately 35-40% below the

actual property value. Id. ¶¶ 10, 17-18. Plaintiff alleges that he warned Defendant Roberts that

Plaintiff would sue anyone who might be a successful bidder on the property. Id. ¶ 9. After the sale,

Defendant Roberts obtained a Certificate of Sale from the IRS, which Plaintiff alleges is clouding

Plaintiff’s title to the property. Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiff alleges that this Certificate of Sale is void because

the auction proceedings were unauthorized and void. Id. ¶ 13. 

Making good on his promise to sue the successful bidder, Plaintiff filed this action on June 6,

2006. By way of relief, Plaintiff seeks either: (1) an order finding that the Certificate of Sale and

any subsequent documents Roberts may obtain from the IRS regarding the sale are invalid as a result

of the IRS’s failure to comply with their statutory obligations in conducting a lien sale; or (2) an

order finding that any rights Roberts may claim in the property are the result of unjust enrichment

due to a grossly undervalued auction price and the sale of the property is void or, alternatively, that

Roberts must compensate Plaintiff for the difference between the actual value of the property and

the auction price that Roberts paid. Id. ¶¶ 14, 16-19. 

Defendant Roberts pursues a counterclaim for declaratory relief against Mayeron and a

cross-claim for declaratory relief against the United States. (Dkt. Nos. 19, 20). Roberts’

Case 3:06-cv-03589-EDL Document 63 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

counterclaim against Plaintiff seeks a judicial determination that the IRS sale of Plaintiff’s property

was valid and that Roberts has a legitimate title to the property free and clear of any claims by

Plaintiff. Counterclaim ¶ 5. Roberts’ cross-claim against the United States seeks a judicial

determination that, if the Court invalidates that the sale of Plaintiff’s property, then (1) the

government must indemnify Roberts for any loss or liability arising from the tax lien sale, and (2)

Roberts’ purchase of Plaintiff’s property is rescinded based on mutual mistake. Cross-claim ¶¶ 8,

11. 

As described below, there are several dispositive motions before the Court. Plaintiff filed a

motion to dismiss the United States and for summary judgment against Roberts (Dkt. No. 42). The

United States filed a motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff (Dkt. No.

35). Roberts joined the United States’ motion and also moves for summary judgment on his

counterclaim against Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 40). Each motion is opposed and fully briefed. On June

26, 2007, a hearing on the parties’ motions came before the Court. For the reasons set forth below,

the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and for summary judgment and GRANTS the

United States’ and Roberts’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment.

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss the United States as a Defendant

Plaintiff argues that the United States should be dismissed as a defendant because this Court

lacks jurisdiction over the United States. Pl’s Mot. at 9. Plaintiff contends that this case is simply

for declaratory relief and to quiet title to the property purportedly purchased by Roberts. Plaintiff

states that the United States is named as a defendant in this action only because the Court required

him to add the government as a defendant. Plaintiff argues that the government cannot be sued

without its consent and that the government has no standing in this case because it has no interest in

Plaintiff’s property. Id. at 9-10, fn. 4 (citing Powelson v. United States, 979 F.2d 141, 145 (9th Cir.

1992)) (affirming dismissal of quiet title action against the United States where “the government

held no interest in the property when the quiet title action was filed.”).

In response, the government argues that 28 U.S.C. § 2410 states, in part, that “the United

States may be named a party in any civil action or suit in any district court . . . to quiet title to . . .

real or personal property on which the United States has or claims a mortgage or other lien.” Def’s

Case 3:06-cv-03589-EDL Document 63 Filed 07/12/07 Page 3 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

Mot. at 6. According to the government, § 2410 waives sovereign immunity and provides a court

jurisdiction only to review the procedural validity of the seizure and sale if, at the time the action

was commenced, the government claims a lien or mortgage on the property. Id. (citing Hughes v.

United States, 953 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1991)).

In its Order dated September 14, 2006, the Court required Plaintiff to add the United States

as a Defendant because the deed to the subject property had not passed to Defendant Roberts at the

time Plaintiff filed his Complaint. Unlike the facts in Powelson, where the government had no

interest in the property when the case was filed, here, the Court has already determined that the IRS

retained an interest in the subject property sufficient to make it a necessary party in this case. 

Therefore, the limited jurisdiction provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2410 applies here, and the United States

is a proper party to this action. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. 

II. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment

Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment “shall be

rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Material

facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477

U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is “genuine” if there is sufficient evidence for a

reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. The court may not weigh the

evidence. Id. at 255. Rather, the nonmoving party’s evidence must be believed and “all justifiable

inferences must be drawn in [the nonmovant’s] favor.” United Steelworkers of America v. Phelps

Dodge Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1542 (9th Cir. 1989) (en banc) (citing Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255).

The moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis

for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, interrogatory answers,

admissions and affidavits, if any, that it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of

material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Where the nonmoving party

will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party’s burden is discharged when it shows the

court that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. See id. at 325. 

Case 3:06-cv-03589-EDL Document 63 Filed 07/12/07 Page 4 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

The government notes that 26 U.S.C. § 6212(a) was modified in 1998 to add a sentence 

requiring that “[s]uch notice shall include a notice to the taxpayer of the taxpayer’s right to contact a

local office of the taxpayer advocate and the location and phone number of the appropriate office.” The

government states that the notice it sent Plaintiff complied with the requirements in place at the time.

Plaintiff does not respond to this statement – his contention, of course, is that he never received any such

notice required under 26 U.S.C. § 6212(a).

5

 A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment “may not rest upon

the mere allegations or denials of [that] party’s pleading, but . . . must set forth specific facts

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at

250. The opposing party need not produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial in

order to avoid a summary judgment. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. Nor must the opposing party

show that the issue will be resolved conclusively in its favor. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at

248-49. All that is necessary is sufficient evidence supporting the asserted factual dispute and

requiring a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial. See id. 

However, “neither a desire to cross-examine an affiant nor an unspecified hope of undermining his

or her credibility suffices to avert summary judgment.” National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Argonaut

Ins. Co., 701 F.3d 95, 97 (9th Cir. 1983).

III. The Parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Regarding the Validity of the

IRS’s Seizure and Sale of Plaintiff’s Property

A. Relevant Statutes

Plaintiff’s allegations related to the seizure and sale of his property relate to two separate

series of events: (1) the alleged failures of the IRS to provide Plaintiff with notices of deficiency

and assessments, and (2) the alleged failures of the IRS to strictly comply with the statutory notice

requirements prior to conducting the seizure and sale of Plaintiff’s property in March 2006. 

Regarding the notices of deficiency and assessment: 26 U.S.C. § 6212(a) states that “[i]f the

Secretary determines that there is a deficiency in respect of any tax . . . he is authorized to send

notice of such deficiency to the taxpayer by certified mail or registered mail.”1

 Under 26 U.S.C. §

6213(a), the IRS must send a notice of deficiency before it may assess, collect, or reduce to

judgment most income tax liabilities. The notice is valid even if not received by the taxpayer, if it is

mailed to the taxpayer’s last known address. See 26 U.S.C. § 6212(b)(1); United States v. Zolla,

724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 (1984); Cool Fuel, Inc. v. Connett, 685 F.2d

Case 3:06-cv-03589-EDL Document 63 Filed 07/12/07 Page 5 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

309, 312 (9th Cir. 1982).

As to the alleged failures related to the seizure and sale of Plaintiff’s house, 26 U.S.C. 

§ 6303(a) states that “[t]he secretary or his delegate shall . . . within 60 days after the making of an

assessment of a tax pursuant to Section 6203 give notice to each person liable for the unpaid tax,

stating the amount and demanding payment thereof. . . .” Under § 6335(b), “[t]he Secretary shall as

soon as practical after the seizure of the property, give notice to the owner.” The Notice of Sale

must be accomplished in the manner set forth in §6335(a) which provides that:

(1) notice in writing shall be given to the owner of the property or shall be left at his

usual place of abode or business if he has such within the internal revenue district

where the seizure is made;

(2) If the owner cannot be readily located, or has no dwelling or place of business

within such district, the notice may be mailed to his last known address. . . .

26 U.S.C. § 6335(a). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a]lthough the IRS has a number of options

for giving notice to the property owner under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6335 (a) and (b), strict compliance with

the statute is required.” Powelson, 979 F.2d at 144. 

B. The Parties’ Arguments

Plaintiff argues that judgment should be entered in his favor and against Defendant Roberts

because there are no disputed material issues of fact concerning Plaintiff’s property right dispute as

the IRS was statutorily barred from seizing Plaintiff’s property, so the sale of Plaintiff’s property

was fatally defective. Plaintiff contends that numerous alleged failures by the IRS compel a finding

by this Court that the IRS did not have authority to seize Plaintiff’s property and that the IRS did not

conduct a valid sale of Plaintiff’s property thereby resulting in nothing being conveyed to Defendant

Roberts. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the following:

• the IRS failed to comply with the Notice of Deficiency requirements of 26

U.S.C.§§ 6212 and 6213 prior to the seizure and auction of Plaintiff’s

property; 

Case 3:06-cv-03589-EDL Document 63 Filed 07/12/07 Page 6 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

• the IRS failed to issue a proper assessment for the alleged taxes owed by

Plaintiff for the 1992 tax year;

• the IRS failed to issue a Notice of Assessment to Plaintiff as required by 26

U.S.C. § 6303(a);

• the IRS failed to deliver the Notice of Sale to Plaintiff as required by 26

U.S.C. § 6335(b); and

• the IRS had no authority to reduce the market value of Plaintiff’s property.

In support of these contentions, Plaintiff states that an IRS agent personally delivered a

Notice of Seizure regarding the property at 850 Athens Ave. on January 17, 2006. Plaintiff states

that the notice alleged that he owed over $26,000 in taxes. Pl’s Mot. at 3 (citing Declaration of

Dennis Mayeron ¶3) (“Mayeron Decl.”). Prior to that date, however, Plaintiff alleges that he never

received a notice of deficiency or assessment notice from the IRS regarding taxes owed from 1992. 

Mayeron Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. Plaintiff indicates that he retains notices he receives from the IRS, searched

his records for any notice of deficiency or notice of assessment, but never found such documents,

nor were such documents provided to him in response to prior Freedom of Information Act requests. 

Id.

Plaintiff also states that on February 9, 2006, the IRS mailed a Notice of Sale to him which

set an auction date for March 16, 2006. Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff indicates that at the time the IRS mailed

the Notice of Sale, he was located within the same internal revenue district as the seized property. 

Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff also indicates that he received a copy of a “Minimum Bid Worksheet” in early

February 2006. Id. ¶ 8. The Minimum Bid Worksheet shows two price reductions in the fair market

value of the seized property – one for 25% and the other for an additional 20%. Id. Although

Plaintiff concedes that he received certain notices regarding the seizure and sale of his property, he

contends that the IRS failed to provide him with the appropriate notice required by 26 U.S.C. §

6335. In light of these alleged failures, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Roberts has no rights to

Plaintiff’s property that was sold at the March 10, 2006 tax lien sale. 

Case 3:06-cv-03589-EDL Document 63 Filed 07/12/07 Page 7 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

8

In response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and in support of its own motion for

summary judgment, the United States makes three main points:

• this Court has limited jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2410

• the IRS issued a proper Notice of Deficiency and a proper Notice of

Assessment under 26 U.S.C. § 6212 and 6303; and

• the IRS complied with the delivery requirements for the Notice of Sale to

Plaintiff under 26 U.S.C. § 6335.

With respect to its first argument, the government states that 28 U.S.C. § 2410 provides

limited jurisdiction and waives sovereign immunity only so far as to allow the Court to review the

procedural validity of a seizure and sale if, at the time the action was commenced, the government

claims a lien or mortgage on the property. Def’s Mot. at 6. However, the government correctly

points out that “‘[a] taxpayer may not use a section 2410 action to collaterally attack the merits of an

assessment.”’ Id. (citing Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1992); Shaw v.

United States, 331 F.2d 493 (9th Cir. 1964)). 

The government argues in the alternative that it complied with the statutory requirements of

the notice of deficiency and assessments, and therefore, Plaintiff’s challenge to the merits of the

underlying assessment fails. In support of this argument, the government has submitted a Certificate

of Assessments and Payments. Def’s Opp. at 3 (citing Exhibit 19 to the Declaration of Cynthia Stier

which was submitted with the government’s motion for summary judgment) (“Stier Decl.”). The

government argues that the Certificate of Assessment and Payments establishes that the requisite

assessment notices were properly made. Id. The government further argues that, absent contrary

evidence, the existence of a Certificate of Assessments and Payment is sufficient to establish that the

notices and assessments were properly made. Id. (citing Zolla, 724 F.2d at 810; United States v.

Chila, 871 F.2d 1015, 1017-18 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); Borrero v. United

States, 1993 WL 625569 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 14, 1993)).

After the June 26 hearing, the government also submitted the Amended Declaration of Jackie

Hobbs which attaches an “IMF MCC transcript” for Plaintiff Mayeron at Exhibit 2. (“Hobbs

Case 3:06-cv-03589-EDL Document 63 Filed 07/12/07 Page 8 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

9

Decl.”). Ms. Hobbs indicates that she “is a Tax Compliance Officer with the [IRS] employed in the

Small Business/Self-Employed Division.” Hobbs Decl. ¶ 1. As a tax compliance officer, Ms.

Hobbs’ duties include office audits for self-employed and individual taxpayers.” Id. According to

Ms. Hobbs, “taxpayer accounts are maintained by the IRS in the ordinary course of business on its

computer system through Individual Master File (“IMF”). Id. Ms. Hobbs further indicates that the

IMF accounts for taxpayers are “maintained in the ordinary course of business.” Id. ¶ 3. Ms. Hobbs

explains that she reviewed the attached IMF MCC transcript for Plaintiff for the 1992 tax year. Id. ¶

6. According to Ms. Hobbs, “[t]he STAT-58 entry [in the transcript] evidences that the IRS sent a

fourth Notice of Deficiency and Notice of Assessment to Dennis Mayeron by certified mail on

September 9, 1996.” Id. ¶ 7.

Finally, the government argues that “the record clearly establishes that Plaintiff received

notice of his delinquent 1992 tax liability prior to seizure and sale through” the receipt of notices on

August 25, 2004 (Final Notice of Intent to Levy) (Stier Decl., Ex. 5); February 1, 2005 (Notice of

Levy) (Stier Decl., Ex. 6); and December 9, 2005 (Notice of intent to collect unpaid taxes) (Stier

Decl., Ex. 8). Def’s Opp. at 4. Defendants argue that such notices of deficiency, lien, levy,

garnishment and sale are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 6303(a). Def’s Opp. at

4 (citing Hughes, 953 F.2d at 536; Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 525 (9th Cir. 1990)).

With respect to Plaintiff’s claim that the IRS failed to deliver to the Notice of Sale as

required by 26 U.S.C. § 6335(b), the government argues that the IRS’s service of the Notice of Sale

on Plaintiff is consistent with the requirements of § 6335(b) because an agent of the IRS attempted

to personally deliver the Notice of Sale to Plaintiff. After the attempt at personal service was not

successful, the IRS agent left the Notice of Sale under Plaintiff’s doormat when he did not answer

the door and he also sent the Notice of Sale to Plaintiff by certified and regular mail. Def’s Opp. at

5 (citing Declaration of Benjamin Dotson which describes his efforts in attempting to personally

serve Plaintiff with the Notice of Sale). According to the government, such procedures comply with

the delivery requirements set forth in 26 U.S.C. § 6335(b).

C. Discussion

Case 3:06-cv-03589-EDL Document 63 Filed 07/12/07 Page 9 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

10

1. This Court’s Jurisdiction is Limited under 28 U.S.C. § 2410

Although Plaintiff’s initial complaint was styled as a one for quiet title and unjust enrichment

against only Defendant Roberts, this Court has previously held that the United States is a necessary

party to this action because it retained an interest in the subject property at the time Plaintiff filed his

Complaint, and ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. Accordingly, jurisdiction over the

United States is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 2410 which waives sovereign immunity and provides the

Court with jurisdiction to consider matters falling within the scope of the statute. Hughes, 953 F.2d

at 538. The Ninth Circuit has “strictly limited the reach and application of this statute.” Id.

Under § 2410, a taxpayer may bring a quiet title action against the United States, and in so

doing, may contest “the procedural validity of a tax lien.” Elias, 908 F.2d at 527. However, “[a]

taxpayer may not use a section 2410 naming the United States as a defendant to collaterally attack

the merits of an assessment.” Id. This means that a district court lacks jurisdiction to review the

merits of a federal income tax assessment as part of a quiet title action brought pursuant to § 2410. 

Id. The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the following types

of claims as part of a taxpayer’s § 2410 action: (1) that a tax deficiency is “null and void;” (2) that “a

lawful assessment against him does not exist;” and (3) that an assessment is invalid because the

taxpayer “was not issued a notice of deficiency” pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 6212 and 6213(a). Elias,

908 F.2d at 527.

Although Plaintiff would prefer to characterize his case as one that could proceed solely

against Defendant Roberts, the Court has previously found that the government is a necessary party

to this action because of its interest in the property when the Complaint was filed. Therefore, § 2410

is implicated and it significantly limits the Court’s jurisdiction in this case. While many of

Plaintiff’s allegations relate to the IRS’s alleged failures to provide the required notices of

assessment and deficiency, such claims under §§ 6212 and 6213 address the merits of the assessment

and not the procedural validity of the seizure and sale. Accordingly, they are beyond the reach of

this Court’s jurisdiction under § 2410.

2. Assuming the Court May Consider the Merits, There is No Genuine

Issue of Material Fact Regarding the Notices of Deficiency and

Case 3:06-cv-03589-EDL Document 63 Filed 07/12/07 Page 10 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

11

Assessment under §§ 6212, 6213 or 6303(a)

Alternatively, if the Court may reach these issues, the government has shown that there is no

genuine issue of material fact that it complied with 26 U.S.C. §§ 6212 and 6213 in issuing the

notices of deficiency. Additionally, the government has convincingly shown that it complied with 

§ 6303(a) in issuing the notice of assessment. In support of its position, the government submitted

(1) the Certificate of Assessments and Payments (Exhibit 19 to the Stier Declaration), and (2) the

Amended Declaration of Jackie Hobbs to establish that the government mailed the required notices

of deficiency and assessment. The government further argues that, absent contrary evidence, the

existence of a Certificate of Assessments and Payment is sufficient to establish that the notices and

assessments were properly made. Def’s Opp. at 3 (citing Hughes, 953 F.2d at 536; Elias, 908 F.2d

at 525). The government also notes that even if Plaintiff did not receive the September 9, 1996

Notice of Deficiency described in the Amended Hobbs Declaration, “the record clearly establishes

that Plaintiff received notice of his delinquent 1992 tax liability prior to seizure and sale” through

the receipt of notices on August 25, 2004 (Final Notice of Intent to Levy - Stier Decl., Ex. 5);

February 1, 2005 (Notice of Levy - Stier Decl., Ex. 6); and December 9, 2005 (notice of intent to

collect unpaid taxes - Stier Decl., Ex. 8). Def’s Opp. at 4.

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that certificates of tax assessments and payments are

“highly probative, and are sufficient, in the absence of contrary evidence, to establish that the

notices and assessments were properly made.” Zolla, 724 F.2d at 810 (citing United States v.

Aherns, 530 F.2d 781, 784-86 (8th Cir. 1979); Cataldo v. Comm’r, 60 T.C. 522, 524 (1973)); see

also Hughes, 953 F.2d at 535. In Zolla, the Ninth Circuit held that notices are properly made “even

if not received by the taxpayer, if it is mailed to the taxpayer’s last known address.” Id.; see also

Cool Fuel, Inc., 685 F.2d at 312. The Ninth Circuit has also found that notices of deficiencies, liens,

levy, sealed bid sale and garnishment informing the taxpayer of the amount owed and requesting

payment satisfy the requirements under § 6303(a) because “[t]he form on which a notice of

assessment and demand for payment is made is irrelevant as long as it provides the taxpayer with all

the information requested under 26 U.S.C. § 6303(a).” Hughes, 953 F.2d at 536. 

Case 3:06-cv-03589-EDL Document 63 Filed 07/12/07 Page 11 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

12

Plaintiff contends that he never received a Notice of Deficiency or a Notice of Assessment. 

However, Plaintiff does not claim that he was unaware of his tax liability nor does he provide any

evidence raising a question of fact that the IRS did not send the notices of deficiency or assessment. 

Rather, he simply states that he never received an “assessment notice from the IRS regarding the

year 1992.” Mayeron Decl. at ¶5. 

According to Zolla and Cool Fuel, Inc., the fact that Plaintiff did not receive the notices does

not render them invalid. Accordingly, in the event the Court is authorized to adjudicate the merits of

Plaintiff’s claims related to the United States’ compliance with §§ 6212 and 6213, the Court finds

that the government has established through the Amended Hobbs Declaration and its attachments

that the notices were properly made and summary judgment on this issue against Plaintiff is

appropriate. With respect to the notice of assessment under § 6303(a), because Plaintiff received

numerous notices of the IRS’ intent to levy and to collect, and because Plaintiff has failed to provide

any evidence contradicting the government’s Certificate of Assessment, Plaintiff has otherwise

failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact regarding the notices of deficiency and assessment. 

Therefore, following the guidance of Hughes, the Court finds that summary judgment is appropriate

regarding Plaintiff’s claims under § 6303(a). 

3. There is No Genuine Issue of Material Fact Regarding the Notice of

Seizure and Sale of Plaintiff’s Property

The IRS’s authority to levy upon and sell Plaintiff’s property derives from 26 U.S.C. §§

6321, 6322, and 6331. Section 6335 sets forth the procedural requirements for seizure and sale. 

Section 6335 requires: (1) the owner of subject property must be given written notice of the seizure

and the proposed sale; (2) the notice of the seizure and sale sent to the owner must specify the sum

demanded and provide a description of the property; (3) the public must receive notice of the sale;

(4) the public notice must specify the property to be sold and the time, place, manner and conditions

of the sale; (5) the time of the sale must not be less than 10 days not more than 40 days from the

time of giving public notice; (6) a minimum price must be determined before the sale of the

property; (7) the property must be sold to the highest bidder; and (8) the sale must be by public

auction or by public sale under sealed bid. 26 U.S.C. § 6335.

Case 3:06-cv-03589-EDL Document 63 Filed 07/12/07 Page 12 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

13

Plaintiff’s arguments related to the seizure and sale of his property are (1) because the IRS

did not personally serve him in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6335(b), the notice of sale is invalid, and 

(2) the minimum price set by the IRS was arbitrary. With respect to the service of the notice of

seizure, § 6335(a) provides that the notice of seizure shall be left at the owner’s usual place of abode

or business if he has such within the internal revenue district where the seizure is made. If the

owner cannot be readily located . . . the notice may be mailed to his last known address.” The

government submitted the Declaration of Benjamin Dotson which indicates that he went to

Plaintiff’s house in an attempt to personally serve him, but Plaintiff did not answer the door, so Mr.

Dotson left the notice under Plaintiff’s doormat and, in an abundance of caution, also mailed a

notice to Plaintiff. Dotson Decl. ¶ 4. Plaintiff does not contest that he received the notice under his

door nor does he dispute that such notice was, in fact, left under his doormat. Rather, he complains

that he received the notice in the mail. Mayeron Decl. ¶ 6 (“On or about February 9, 2006, the IRS

mailed to me a Notice of Sale, setting the auction date as March 16, 2006.”). Based in the Dotson

Declaration and Plaintiff’s failure to provide any contrary evidence, the Court finds that no genuine

issue of material fact exists regarding whether the government complied with § 6335. 

As for Plaintiff’s allegation that the IRS arbitrarily reduced the price of his property, the

government contends that the it followed valid, established procedures in setting the sale price. 

Def’s Opp. at 9. The IRS followed its own manual in setting a price and determined the property

value from comparable sales, photographs and personal observations. Id. (citing Stier Decl. Exs.

11-13). Plaintiff failed to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. He

submitted no contrary evidence suggesting that the IRS deviated from its standard procedures or

otherwise erred in determining the value of his property prior to the tax lien sale. Accordingly,

summary judgment is appropriate on these claims.

VI. Plaintiff’s and Defendant Roberts Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Regarding

Plaintiff’s Unjust Enrichment Claim

In light of the above findings upholding the seizure and sale of Plaintiff’s property,

Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment fails. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment regarding his unjust enrichment claim and GRANTS Defendant Roberts’ motion

Case 3:06-cv-03589-EDL Document 63 Filed 07/12/07 Page 13 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

14

for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim.

//

//

V. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and for summary

judgment and GRANTS the United States’ and Roberts’ motions to dismiss and for summary

judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03589-EDL Document 63 Filed 07/12/07 Page 14 of 14