Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01407/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01407-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Henry J. Langer
Appellant
Patricia K. Langer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1407

___________

Patricia K. Langer; Henry J. Langer, *

*

Appellants, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

United States of America, * District of Minnesota.

*

Appellee. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: December 30, 2004

Filed: February 8, 2005

___________

Before BYE, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Henry and Patricia Langer (husband and wife) appeal the district court’s

adverse grant of summary judgment in their action challenging the Internal Revenue

Service’s (IRS’s) attempt to collect by levy Federal Insurance Contributions Act

(FICA) taxes. We reverse.

The Langers’ pro se complaint sought review of the determination of the IRS

Office of Appeals that Patricia Langer was liable for the employee portion of certain

unpaid FICA taxes, and that the IRS could collect such taxes by levy. The crux of

their complaint is that the IRS incorrectly assessed Patricia Langer’s FICA taxes as

Appellate Case: 04-1407 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2005 Entry ID: 1864760 
-2-

income taxes, and thus the IRS cannot use its administrative procedures to collect

these taxes by levy. The district court granted summary judgment to the IRS,

concluding that, because the Tax Court had determined in a prior proceeding that the

taxes at issue in this case were FICA and not income liabilities, collateral estoppel

prevented the Langers from arguing that the IRS had incorrectly assessed the taxes

as income taxes. We disagree with this conclusion.

By way of background, although the IRS need not send deficiency notices to

taxpayers before assessing FICA taxes, where the underlying tax is an income, estate,

gift, or excise tax, the IRS is required to send the taxpayer a deficiency notice before

making the assessment. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6212, 6213(a). Consistent with this

statutory obligation, the Tax Court has subject matter jurisdiction only with regard

to taxpayer challenges of (1) an IRS pre-assessment deficiency notice; or (2) the

IRS’s assessment of an income, estate, gift, or excise tax before complying with the

required deficiency-notice procedures. See 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a) (authorizing taxpayer

to file suit in Tax Court for redetermination of noticed tax deficiency; also

authorizing taxpayer to obtain injunction in Tax Court if IRS assesses income, estate,

gift, or excise tax without complying with required notice-of-deficiency procedures);

Laing v. United States, 423 U.S. 161, 165 n.4 (1976) (deficiency notice is of import

primarily because it is jurisdictional prerequisite to taxpayer’s suit in Tax Court for

redetermination of his tax liability).

Turning to the instant case, before the Langers filed this action in the district

court, they sought review of the IRS’s collection procedures with the Tax Court. The

Tax Court, however, concluded that the Langers’ case “c[ame] up as an employmenttax [FICA tax] liability,” and thus the Tax Court dismissed the suit based on lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. We believe the Tax Court’s dismissal disposes of only

two issues: (1) that the IRS did not send the Langers a deficiency notice; and (2) that

the underlying tax is in fact not an income, estate, gift, or excise tax, and thus the IRS

was not required under sections 6212 and 6213(a) to send the Langers a deficiency

Appellate Case: 04-1407 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2005 Entry ID: 1864760 
-3-

notice. We note, however, that the Langers acknowledge the underlying tax is in fact

a FICA tax; instead, the essence of their suit is that the IRS incorrectly assessed the

FICA tax as an income tax, and thus it cannot be levied. Because that issue was not

decided by the Tax Court, the application of collateral estoppel was erroneous.

The IRS next argues that a stipulation the Langers made in district court--that

“[o]nly Patricia Langer’s FICA tax liabilities are at issue in this case”--provides this

court with an alternative basis to affirm the district court’s finding that the taxes were

assessed as FICA taxes. We disagree. We believe this stipulation merely reflects the

parties’ understanding that the underlying liability at issue in this case stems from

unpaid FICA taxes, whereas, once again, the crux of the Langers’ complaint is that

the unpaid FICA taxes cannot be collected because the IRS incorrectly assessed them

as income taxes.

Finally, we decline to consider as an alternative ground for affirmance that

various computer printouts submitted to the district court conclusively establish the

FICA tax was properly assessed as such. Cf. Roberts v. Commissioner, 329 F.3d

1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (noting courts have held that Form 4340

Certificate of Assessment constitutes at least presumptive proof tax has been validly

assessed). The district court did not address this argument, and we decline to do so

in the first instance on appeal. The district court may consider the government’s

alternative position on remand. See Cody v. Weber, 256 F.3d 764, 769 n.2 (8th Cir.

2001) (declining prison officials’ invitation to affirm summary judgment order on

alternative grounds of qualified immunity, where district court did not rule on that

issue in first instance).

Accordingly, we reverse the grant of summary judgment based on collateral

estoppel, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1407 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/08/2005 Entry ID: 1864760