Madrigal v. District Director of Internal Revenue

416 F. Supp. 405, 38 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5093, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14782
CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 3, 1976
DocketCiv. 73-986-AAH
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 416 F. Supp. 405 (Madrigal v. District Director of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Madrigal v. District Director of Internal Revenue, 416 F. Supp. 405, 38 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5093, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14782 (C.D. Cal. 1976).

Opinion

DECISION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT

HAUK, District Judge.

The present matter was tried on December 19, 1975, for purposes of determining whether amended tax returns signed by the plaintiff were forced upon him by ruse, coercion, threat or intimidation. Having considered the testimony of the witnesses, the documents offered and admitted at trial, the argument of counsel, the pleadings, motions, memorandum in support, and the recent Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Shapiro, 424 U.S. 614, 96 S.Ct. 1062, 47 L.Ed.2d 278, 44 U.S.L.W. 4313 (1976) the following are the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Nature of the Action

1. The present suit was instituted on May 3, 1973, by the plaintiff’s “Action for Injunction Against Enforcement of Wrongful Levy.” The plaintiff alleges that he is a citizen of Mexico, and has been employed in the United States as a full time employee of a domestic corporation since 1967. The plaintiff further alleges that on August 13, 1971, he applied for a permanent resident visa at the American Embassy in Mexico City, for the purpose of entering the United States as a legal permanent citizen. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that an employee of the Internal Revenue Service at the Office of the International Operations of the Internal Revenue Service prepared amended Federal Income Tax Returns (Forms 1040NR) for the years 1968, 1969 and 1970. The plaintiff alleges that he was coerced into signing the amended Federal Income Tax Returns. It is alleged that the plaintiff was told that unless he signed the amended tax returns he would lose his priority for entry into the United States.

2. On August 16, 1973, the United States filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for injunctive relief. The basis for the Government’s motion to dismiss was that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy of law by paying the additional assessment due and by simply submitting an administrative claim for refund with the Internal Revenue Service. The Government argued in its motion to dismiss that if the administrative claim for refund were denied, plaintiff may bring an action in the United States District Court for a refund of the taxes paid. It was further argued by the United States that since the plaintiff had not followed the statutory prerequisite of filing an administrative claim for refund, the present lawsuit was barred by Sections 7421 1 and 7422 2 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Title 26, United States Code).

3. On or about August 28, 1973, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint *408 asserting again the coercion described in the first complaint and further alleging that the amended returns signed by the taxpayer were, “in effect assessed . as supplemental assessments under IRC Section 6204(a).” 3 Accordingly, the plaintiff alleged that the Internal Revenue Service was required to send a notice of deficiency pursuant to Section 6213 4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin the Government from enforcing any tax levy or lien relating to the amended tax returns.

4. On December 14, 1973, the United States filed its motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The position of the United States in support of its motion to dismiss was that Section 6213 5 requires that a notice of deficiency be mailed to the taxpayer only where there is a deficiency as statutorily defined in Section 6211 6 of the *409 Code and that there was no statutory deficiency.

5. On March 4,1974, a hearing was held and the Court denied the Government’s motion to dismiss.

6. Subsequently, the Government filed its answer to the complaint for an injunction denying the allegations of the plaintiff and raising as an affirmative defense the jurisdiction of the Court for the reasons stated in the Government’s previous motion to dismiss.

7. For the purpose of protecting the interests of the Government, the taxpayer was mailed a statutory notice of deficiency for the tax year 1970 pursuant to Code Section 6213 7 on April 11, 1974. The relevant statute of limitations is Section 6501 8 of the Code. Subsequently, the plaintiff *410 filed a petition with the Tax Court on June 7, 1974 for the purpose of determining in the Tax Court the taxpayer’s proper liability for the year 1970.

*412 Findings of Fact

8. Plaintiff is an alien who has not been lawfully admitted to the United States as a permanent resident.

9. In 1964 plaintiff illegally entered the United States, was apprehended by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and was granted voluntary departure from the United States.

10. Subsequently, the plaintiff returned to the United States after being in Mexico for only two days, and after staying a year and a half in the United States, plaintiff was again deported.

11. After being deported a second time, plaintiff returned to the United States using the false name of Felipe Renteria and a false social security number.

12. The plaintiff used the false name and social security number because he thought it would be easier for the plaintiff to stay in the United States.

13. On February 2, 1967, the plaintiff was again deported by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

14. For purposes of obtaining an immigrant visa, plaintiff applied for a visa from the American Embassy in Mexico in early 1971.

15. As a requirement for obtaining an immigrant visa, the visa applicant must present evidence of support to show that the applicant will not become a public charge under Section 212(a)(15) Act of 1952. Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182(a)(15). 9

*413 16. As evidence of his ability to support himself in the United States, plaintiff submitted to the Embassy Vice Consul’s office copies of his U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns (Forms 1040) for the years 1968, 1969 and 1970.

17. Upon examination of the plaintiff’s tax returns for the years 1968, 1969, and 1970, plaintiff was referred by the Vice Consul’s office to the office of the Internal Revenue Service in Mexico City.

18. The plaintiff’s 1968 U.S.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Powerstein v. Commissioner
99 T.C. No. 22 (U.S. Tax Court, 1992)
O'BRIEN v. Evans
560 F. Supp. 228 (D. Oregon, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
416 F. Supp. 405, 38 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5093, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madrigal-v-district-director-of-internal-revenue-cacd-1976.