Culpepper-Smith v. United States

50 F. Supp. 2d 425 (1999)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Culpepper-Smith v. United States

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
50 F. Supp. 2d 425 (1999)

Facts

In 1991, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assessed taxes against Lena Culpepper-Smith (plaintiff) for 1980. The IRS subsequently applied Culpepper-Smith’s 1993 and 1995 refunds to her 1980 taxes. Culpepper-Smith sued the United States (defendant), seeking (1) an injunction barring the IRS from collecting the 1980 taxes; (2) payment of her 1993 and 1995 refunds; and (3) damages, attorney’s fees, and other costs. In June 1998, the United States conceded that the IRS did not send Culpepper-Smith the required deficiency notice, represented that it would abate the 1980 assessment, and asked Culpepper-Smith to stipulate to dismissal. Culpepper-Smith declined to stipulate to dismissal, presumably because the IRS could have issued a new 1980 assessment and because she would have had to forgo fees and costs. In July, the United States moved to dismiss, and Culpepper-Smith cross-moved (1) for summary judgment regarding a permanent injunction, attorney’s fees and other costs, and damages; (2) to amend her complaint to specifically request payment of the refunds; and (3) to enforce the IRS’s concession and to prohibit the IRS from collecting on the 1980 assessment. In August, the court dismissed Culpepper-Smith’s injunction claim and denied Culpepper-Smith’s motion to enforce the IRS’s concession, both subject to the IRS’s abatement of the 1980 assessment and removal of all liens and levies against Culpepper-Smith. The district court also denied Culpepper-Smith’s other motions. In March 1999, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of Culpepper-Smith’s remaining damages claim. Contending that she was the prevailing party, Culpepper-Smith then moved for attorney’s fees and other costs pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (code) § 7430. The United States effectively conceded that Culpepper-Smith was the prevailing party regarding the 1980 assessment, but the United States contended that Culpepper-Smith did not prevail on the other issues that were litigated after the United States’ June 1998 concession.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (O’Neill, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership