Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04082/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04082-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

2 9 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

ERICE. AND PEGGY K. CHANDLER, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 90-4082 

) (D.C. No. 87-C-0976-S) 

) (D. Utah) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable John L. 

District Court for 

designation. 

Kane, Senior District Judge, United States 

the District of Colorado, sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-4082 Document: 010110105209 Date Filed: 04/29/1991 Page: 1 
Taxpayers appeal from an order of the district court granting 

summary judgment for the government in this tax refund action. 

The court concluded that taxpayers raised different grounds for 

recovery in their complaint than they had raised in their claim 

for tax refund and that the government had not waived the 

requirement that any ground for recovery be stated in the claim 

for refund. 

On appeal, taxpayers argue (1) the district court erred in 

determining it does not have subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the 

district court erred in granting summary judgment based upon 

grounds that do not appear in the motion for summary judgment; (3) 

the district court erred in granting summary judgment without 

having properly authenticated evidence; (4) the district court 

erred in rejecting their argument that the government failed to 

assert an avoidance, affirmative defense or statutory defense in 

its pleadings or motions; ( 5) the district court erred in not 

enforcing its local rules; ( 6 ) the district court erred in 

determining the grounds asserted for recovery were not the same 

grounds asserted in the claim for refund; and (7) the district 

court erred in determining the government had not waived an 

insufficient claim for refund. 

Upon consideration of the briefs and record on appeal, we 

conclude the district court correctly granted summary judgment. 

Accordingly, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the 

magistrate's report and recommendation, which was adopted by the 

district court. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-4082 Document: 010110105209 Date Filed: 04/29/1991 Page: 2 
~,r .... 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Utah is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John L. Kane 

Senior District Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-4082 Document: 010110105209 Date Filed: 04/29/1991 Page: 3