Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)
D.C. No. CV-96-00759-DCA
Editorial Note:This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
85 A.F.T.R.2d 2000
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Donald C. Ashmanskas, Magistrate Judge, Presiding.
Before LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
George and Sharon Walker, and George Walker as Trustee for Andrew James Unincorporated Business Trust (collectively referred to as "Walkers"), appeal the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of the Walkers' action challenging the Internal Revenue Service's collection and retention of certain funds in connection with George and Sharon Walker's allegedly delinquent federal tax liabilities. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
1. Claim for Refund
While the government argued before the district court that the first claim brought by the Trust was one for wrongful levy under I.R .C. § 7426 and time-barred by the statute of limitations found in I.R .C. § 6532(c), it now agrees with the Trust that this first claim is for a refund. Under United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 538 (1995), the Trust may bring a refund suit based on its assertion that it was wrongfully compelled to pay George and Sharon Walker's taxes. See also WWSM Investors v. United States, 64 F.3d 456, 458 (9th Cir.1995). As a claim for a refund, it was timely filed under I.R.C. § 6511. Consequently, we reverse the district court's dismissal of this claim.
2. Claim for Release of Federal Tax Liens
The Walkers' lien release claim is moot because the IRS has filed Certificates of Release of Federal Tax Lien, releasing the two liens that are referenced in the Walkers' complaint.
3. Claim for Damages
We affirm the district court's dismissal of the Walkers' claim for damages because the Walkers did not exhaust their administrative remedies as required by I.R.C. § 7432(d)(1). An administrative claim for failure to release a tax lien must include the taxpayer's identifying information, a copy of the notice of the lien affecting the property, the grounds for the claim, a description of injuries, and the amount of the claim. See Treas. Reg. § 301.7432-1(f). The Walkers' correspondence with the IRS did not satisfy the exhaustion requirement because the Walkers did not describe their injury nor specify the amount of damages claimed.
4. Declaratory Judgment Claim
Because the underlying purpose of the Walkers' request for a declaratory judgment is relief from the tax collection activities of the IRS, federal courts are, in general, without jurisdiction to grant declaratory or injunctive relief. Jensen v. I.R.S., 835 F.2d 196, 198 (9th Cir.1987); 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing their claim for declaratory relief.
CONCLUSION
The district court's dismissal of the Trust's claim for a refund is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. The remainder of the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED. Each party shall bear its own costs.