Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/133/926/590511/
Timestamp: 2020-05-29 15:36:59
Document Index: 139407826

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2410', '§ 1291', '§ 6203', '§ 301', '§ 6203', '§ 6303']

Patricia B. Farr, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellee, 133 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 1997) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1997 › Patricia B. Farr, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellee
Patricia B. Farr, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellee, 133 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 1997)
Patricia B. Farr appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of the United States in her quiet title action under 28 U.S.C. § 2410(a) for liens arising from her failure to pay taxes in 1987. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, see Huff v. United States, 10 F.3d 1440, 1443 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.
Because there is no statutory authority for invalidating a tax lien for failure to comply with 26 U.S.C. § 6203, the district court did not err by rejecting Farr's claim that the government's lien is invalid because the government initially failed to respond to Farr's request for a record of assessment. See 26 C.F.R. § 301.6203-1.
Because Farr failed to rebut the presumption raised by Form 4340 that assessment was made, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to the government on Farr's claim that assessment was not properly made under 26 U.S.C. § 6203. See Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 535 (9th Cir. 1992).
Because Farr failed to rebut the presumption that the IRS sent notice and demand on June 22, 1993 and August 9, 1993, the dates indicated on Form 4340, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to the government on Farr's claim that the IRS failed to fulfill the requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 6303(a). See Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).
Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Farr's motion for a new trial, or to alter or amend the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b); School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993).1
We have considered Farr's remaining contentions, and find they are without merit