EC Term of Years Trust v. United States, 550 U.S. 429 (2007)
Primary Holding
A trust cannot challenge an IRS levy on its property through a tax refund action if it has missed the statutory filing deadline for contesting the levy under 26 U.S.C. §7426(a)(1).
In the case of EC Term of Years Trust v. United States, the Supreme Court decided that a trust could not challenge the IRS's seizure of its property to collect someone else's unpaid taxes because it missed the deadline to file its complaint. This ruling is important because it emphasizes the need for individuals and entities to act quickly when they believe their property is wrongfully taken by the IRS. Consumers should be aware that if they find themselves in a similar situation, they must adhere to strict timelines to protect their rights regarding property disputes with the IRS.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In EC Term of Years Trust v. United States, the underlying dispute arose when the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) levied property belonging to the EC Term of Years Trust to collect federal tax liabilities assessed against Elmer W. Cullers, Jr., and Dorothy Cullers. The IRS claimed that the Cullers had taken unwarranted income tax deductions in the 1980s, leading to the tax liabilities. The trust, established in 1991, contested the IRS's levy, arguing that the property seized did not belong to the Cullers and was wrongfully levied upon. The procedural history of the case began when the trust attempted to challenge the IRS's levy under 26 U.S.C. §7426(a)(1), which allows third parties to contest wrongful levies. However, the trust failed to file its challenge within the statutory nine-month deadline following the levy. Instead, the trust sought to pursue a tax refund action under 28 U.S.C. §1346(a)(1), which has a longer statute of limitations. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the trust's ability to challenge the levy through the refund action. The relevant background context includes the Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, which established the framework for third-party challenges to IRS levies. The Act aimed to protect individuals or entities that might be wrongfully subjected to a levy on property not owned by the taxpayer. It imposed a strict nine-month deadline for filing such challenges to ensure prompt resolution and allow the IRS to continue pursuing the taxpayer's assets if necessary. The case highlights the tension between the trust's claim to the levied property and the IRS's authority to collect taxes owed by the Cullers.
Whether a trust that missed the statutory filing deadline to challenge an IRS levy under 26 U.S.C. §7426(a)(1) may still pursue a tax refund action under 28 U.S.C. §1346(a)(1).
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- February 26, 2007
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Souter
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1 (2008)
Consumer LostA taxpayer seeking a refund of unlawfully assessed taxes must comply with the specific time limits and procedures set forth in the Internal Revenue Code, and cannot proceed under the more forgiving time limits of the Tucker Act if those requirements are not met.
Knight v. Commissioner, 552 U.S. 181 (2008)
Consumer LostInvestment advisory fees incurred by a trust are subject to the 2% floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions under the Internal Revenue Code, similar to individuals.
Hinck v. United States, 550 U.S. 501 (2007)
Consumer LostThe Tax Court provides the exclusive forum for judicial review of a refusal to abate interest under §6404(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005)
Consumer LostThe national interest in providing a federal forum for federal tax litigation is sufficiently substantial to support the exercise of federal question jurisdiction over a state action involving a disputed issue of federal title law, even in the absence of a federal cause of action.