UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

KENT CARTER; KENT CARTER, as 

Trustee for the Kent Carter Family Trust 

PTO, 

 Defendants - Appellants, 

and 

GAIL CARTER; NEW MEXICO 

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND 

TAXATION, 

 Defendants. 

No. 14-2180 

(D.C. No. 2:12-CV-00469-RB-LAM) 

(D. N.M.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, McKAY and PHILLIPS, 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

April 22, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-2180 Document: 01019419285 Date Filed: 04/22/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

 

 Kent Carter appeals from an amended judgment awarding the Government 

$895,256.71 for unpaid income taxes, foreclosing federal tax liens against three of 

his real properties, and ordering their sale. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, and we liberally construe Mr. Carter’s pro se filings, Yang v. Archuleta, 

525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). 

 The parties are familiar with the background of this case, so we proceed 

directly to the merits. Mr. Carter’s main appellate challenge is that the district court 

lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment because the Government filed this case 

without the “written approval of the IRS District Director.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 2.1

 

But no such approval is required when the Government sues a taxpayer to recover 

unpaid taxes and enforce tax liens. Rather, litigation may be initiated if “the 

Secretary [of the Treasury] authorizes or sanctions the proceedings and the Attorney 

General or his delegate directs that the action be commenced.” 26 U.S.C. § 7401; 

see also id. § 7403(a) (stating that “whether or not levy has been made, the Attorney 

General or his delegate, at the request of the Secretary, may direct a civil action to be 

filed . . . to enforce the lien of the United States”). In its amended complaint, the 

Government pleaded § 7401 and § 7403(a) allegations. Mr. Carter offers nothing to 

refute the proper authorization of the Government’s case against him. 

 

1

 Mr. Carter appears to derive a “written approval” requirement from 

Pub. L. No. 105-206, Title III, § 3421(a)(1), which directs the Commissioner of 

Internal Revenue to develop and implement procedures requiring that “a notice of 

lien or levy . . . be reviewed by a supervisor” before being filed. 

Appellate Case: 14-2180 Document: 01019419285 Date Filed: 04/22/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

 Mr. Carter also challenges the calculation of his tax debt, the form in which 

the Government’s summary-judgment motion was sent to him, and a state’s notice of 

liens. We conclude that the district court aptly rejected these challenges. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same 

reasons identified in its May 1, 2013, June 26, 2013, and February 4, 2014, opinions 

and orders and its September 17, 2014, order denying reconsideration. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Monroe G. McKay 

 Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 14-2180 Document: 01019419285 Date Filed: 04/22/2015 Page: 3