Gyorgy v. Commissioner
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
779 F.3d 466 (2015)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determined that Christopher Gyorgy (plaintiff) owed unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties for 2001 through 2003. In 2006 and 2007, the IRS mailed deficiency notices, including payment demands, to Gyorgy at Octavia Street in San Francisco, which was the address on his most recently filed tax return. However, Gyorgy moved frequently during this period and did not receive the notices. The IRS eventually filed a notice of federal tax lien against Gyorgy’s property, which Gyorgy challenged before the IRS Office of Appeals. The Office of Appeals sustained the lien notice, ruling that the IRS properly mailed deficiency notices to Gyorgy’s last known address. Gyorgy sued the IRS commissioner (defendant) in the United States Tax Court, which ruled that the lien notice for 2001 was invalid because the IRS failed to prove that it sent a deficiency notice for that year. However, the Tax Court sustained the lien notices for 2002 and 2003. Gyorgy appealed, arguing that he provided his new addresses with the post office and the IRS. However, Gyorgy offered few details and no documentation to support this claim. Gyorgy also argued that third parties provided the IRS with potential alternative addresses. However, the IRS had unsuccessfully attempted to verify that Gyorgy resided at one such address. Finally, Gyorgy argued that the IRS knew that he did not live on Octavia Street because the postal service returned one of the notices as undeliverable and that the IRS should have investigated where he really lived.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kanne, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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.