Snyder v. Comm IRS , 237 F. App'x 734 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2007 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    6-27-2007
    Snyder v. Comm IRS
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 06-2179
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
    Recommended Citation
    "Snyder v. Comm IRS" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 881.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/881
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    NO. 06-2179
    ________________
    JESSIE M. SNYDER,
    Appellant
    v.
    MARK W. EVERSON,
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal From the United States District Court
    For the Western District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-01561)
    District Judge: Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.
    _______________________________________
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    April 20, 2007
    Before: SLOVITER, MCKEE AND AMBRO, CIRCUIT JUDGES
    (Filed: June 27, 2007)
    _______________________
    OPINION
    _______________________
    PER CURIAM
    Jessie M. Snyder appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the
    Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing her complaint. We will affirm.
    In November 2005, Snyder instituted suit against the Commissioner of the Internal
    Revenue Service (“IRS”). In her complaint, Snyder alleged that in October 2005, she
    received a levy and notices of seizure from the IRS, the amount of the levy being
    $1,251,631.84, for unpaid taxes for the period ended December 31, 1978. She stated that
    the IRS collection actions stemmed from a July 1991 consent judgment entered against
    her and her husband (now deceased), in the amount of $408,411.71. Snyder contended
    that the matter was fully settled, by agreement with the government, through payment of
    $10,000 to the IRS. Snyder attached to her complaint copies of several documents,
    including the levy and notices of seizure, the consent judgment,1 the first page of the
    settlement agreement, the $10,000 check, and a notice that part of her Social Security
    payments had been taken to offset her debt to the IRS. Alleging that the IRS’s collection
    actions were occurring by error, mistake, or fraud, Snyder sought temporary and
    permanent injunctive relief to prevent the IRS from further collection activity and to
    refund the amounts taken from her Social Security benefits. She also sought punitive
    damages if the IRS was determined to have committed fraudulent acts.
    The government filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter
    and personal jurisdiction. It attached a complete copy of the settlement agreement, noting
    that the agreement required annual installment payments to be made from 1991 through
    1
    The consent judgment was filed in United States v. Snyder, No. 86-cv-00466
    (W.D. Pa. July 19, 1991).
    2
    1998, in addition to the initial $10,000 payment.2 The agreement also specified that if the
    Snyders’ income was insufficient to trigger a payment, they were to submit a sworn
    statement of income with a copy of their tax return. Because no payments or sworn
    statements were made after the initial payment, the government determined that Snyder
    was in default of the agreement and thus became liable for the taxes owed. As such, the
    government argued that Snyder’s lawsuit naming the IRS Commissioner was actually
    against the United States, the real party in interest for disputing tax liability.
    Accordingly, to the extent that Snyder sought damages relief, the government argued that
    the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the United States has
    sovereign immunity. In addition, the government argued that the tax exception to the
    Declaratory Judgment Act (
    28 U.S.C. § 2201
    ) and the Anti-Injunction Act (
    26 U.S.C. § 7421
    (a)) barred Snyder’s suit to the extent she requested injunctive relief. Moreover,
    the government argued that the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the
    government defendant because Snyder had failed to serve the complaint in accordance
    with Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
    In response, Snyder did not dispute any of the government’s assertions. Rather,
    she argued only that the government’s argument that she breached the settlement
    agreement was time-barred under Pennsylvania law. In reply, the government stated that
    the consent agreement contains a waiver of the statute of limitations, that state-law
    2
    The installment payment terms are also shown on the (incomplete) first page of
    the settlement agreement attached to Snyder’s complaint.
    3
    statutes of limitations do not apply to the federal government’s tax collection, and the
    applicable federal limitations period did not apply to the consent judgment entered in this
    case.
    On March 7, 2006, citing the subject matter and personal jurisdictional bases
    raised by the government, the District Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the
    suit, granted the government’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed Snyder’s complaint.
    Snyder appeals.
    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . In her brief on appeal, Snyder
    appears to concede that the tax debt at issue remains unpaid and that the District Court
    lacked jurisdiction over her complaint. She no longer pursues her statute of limitations
    argument. She does not contend that the District Court committed any error in dismissing
    her complaint, and we discern no error upon our review of the record. Rather, Snyder’s
    sole argument is that in April 2006, after the dismissal of her complaint, she promised to
    pay the government $1,300,000 to satisfy her tax debt. To the extent that she asks this
    Court to grant substantive relief based on this matter outside of the District Court record
    on appeal, we decline to do so. In any event, Snyder’s new argument provides no basis to
    disturb the District Court’s judgment.
    We will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-2179

Citation Numbers: 237 F. App'x 734

Filed Date: 6/27/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023