Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02763/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02763-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Buel H. Neece
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

FIL~ D 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALl§iited 8,fc;f~~?~~; Appt1-..als 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

BUEL H. NEECE; PEGGY J. NEECE, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

MAY 2 81992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerl: 

No. 88-2763 

(D.C. No. 88-C-1055) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

Before HOLLOWAY, SETH and BARRE'M1, Circuit Judges. 

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. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

In June, 1988, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a 

notice of jeopardy assessment against plaintiffs. 

exhausting their administrative remedies, plaintiffs 

After 

sought 

judicial review of the jeopardy assessment. The district court 

held the jeopardy assessment was unreasonable and ordered the 

assessment abated. Defendant appeals . Plaintiffs filed a motion 

* 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: 88-2763 Document: 010110254335 Date Filed: 05/28/1992 Page: 1
to dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

26 u.s.c. S 7429, which provides for the administrative and 

judicial review of the imposition of jeopardy assessments, states 

that "[a]ny determination made by a district court under this 

section shall be final and conclusive and shall not be reviewed by 

any other court." 26 u.s.c. § 7429(f). Plaintiffs assert 

§ 7429(f) precludes appellate review of the district court's order 

abating the jeopardy assessment. Defendant argues this court has 

appellate jurisdiction because the district court acted outside 

its jurisdiction in reviewing this action, which was untimely 

commenced. The circuits are split as to what authority, if any, 

an appellate court has to review a district court's decision made 

pursuant to§ 7429. Compare, !L.JL_, Zuluaga v. United States, 774 

F.2d 1487, 1489 (9th Cir. 1985) (clear language and legislative 

intent of§ 7429 precludes appellate review) with, !L.JL_, Hiley v. 

United States, 807 F.2d 623, 626-28 (7th Cir. 1986) (appellate 

court has authority to review district court's decision under 

§ 7429 for the limited purpose of determining whether the district 

court acted within the scope of its authority). 

In 1976, Congress, recognizing the potential hardship the 

imposition of a jeopardy assessment prior to the determination of 

tax liability might have on a taxpayer, enacted§ 7429 in order to 

provide expedited, but limited, judicial review of the imposition 

of a jeopardy assessment. See, !L.JL_, Pals v. United States, 867 

F.2d 1162, 1163 (8th Cir. 1989); Zuluaga, 774 F.2d at 1489. 

Section 7429(b)(2) authorizes a district court to review the 

imposition of a jeopardy assessment to determine whether the 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2763 Document: 010110254335 Date Filed: 05/28/1992 Page: 2
assessment was reasonable and the amount of the assessment was 

appropriate. Section 7429(f) precludes any further review of a 

district court's determinations made under§ 7429. Therefore, 

§ 7429 specifically precludes review of any district court 

decision concerning the reasonableness of a jeopardy assessment or 

the amount of that assessment. See Hiley, 807 F.2d at 628; 

v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 1511, 1513 (11th Cir. 1986). Because 

the district court's order at issue in this appeal addressed the 

reasonableness of the jeopardy assessment,§ 7429(f) precludes our 

review of the order. See Hiley, 807 F.2d at 628; Hall, 805 F.2d 

at 1513. 

The appeal from the judgment of the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma is, therefore, 

DISMISSED. Plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees and costs on 

appeal is DENIED . 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2763 Document: 010110254335 Date Filed: 05/28/1992 Page: 3