Vogt v. Internal Revenue Service

E.D. Pennsylvania

Vogt v. Internal Revenue Service

278 F. Supp. 821, 20 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5742, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11016

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 26, 1967

DocketCiv. A. No. 43143

StatusPublished

This text of 278 F. Supp. 821 (Vogt v. Internal Revenue Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vogt v. Internal Revenue Service, 278 F. Supp. 821, 20 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5742, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11016 (E.D. Pa. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

JOHN MORGAN DAVIS, District Judge.

The plaintiff has instituted a suit against the United States on a rather curious cause of action. It is contended that the defendant is negligent for having failed to prosecute the plaintiff for income tax evasion after having been told by Internal Revenue agents in 1962 that a prosecution was forthcoming.

As a result of this impending action by the Government, the plaintiff alleges that he has been unable to keep steady employment and that this fact constitutes deprivation of property under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

To redress this wrong, the plaintiff herein seeks damages of ten billion dollars, to be divided equally between the Democratic and Republican parties.

Before this Court is the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Although the Government has presented formidable authority in support of lack of consent by the sovereign to be sued, under the circumstances herein presented, it is not necessary to explore this line of reasoning. No citizen possesses a “right” to be either criminally prosecuted, or to be named as defendant in a civil suit, both of which are possible under the Internal Revenue Code. Since no such “right” exists, then there can be no concomitant “duty” on the part of the Government for which damages can be awarded.

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

MEMORANDUM

JOHN MORGAN DAVIS, District Judge.

The plaintiff has instituted a suit against the United States on a rather curious cause of action. It is contended that the defendant is negligent for having failed to prosecute the plaintiff for income tax evasion after having been told by Internal Revenue agents in 1962 that a prosecution was forthcoming.

As a result of this impending action by the Government, the plaintiff alleges that he has been unable to keep steady employment and that this fact constitutes deprivation of property under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

To redress this wrong, the plaintiff herein seeks damages of ten billion dollars, to be divided equally between the Democratic and Republican parties.

Before this Court is the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Although the Government has presented formidable authority in support of lack of consent by the sovereign to be sued, under the circumstances herein presented, it is not necessary to explore this line of reasoning. No citizen possesses a “right” to be either criminally prosecuted, or to be named as defendant in a civil suit, both of which are possible under the Internal Revenue Code. Since no such “right” exists, then there can be no concomitant “duty” on the part of the Government for which damages can be awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 F. Supp. 821, 20 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5742, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vogt-v-internal-revenue-service-paed-1967.