Portsmouth Ambulance, Inc. v. United States

756 F.3d 494 (2014)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Portsmouth Ambulance, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
756 F.3d 494 (2014)

Facts

Urgent Care Transport, Inc. (UC) failed to pay certain taxes to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In 2003 and 2007, the IRS recorded tax liens against UC. In October 2006, Kenneth Boggs (plaintiff) purchased a majority stake in Portsmouth Ambulance, Inc. (Portsmouth) (plaintiff), which acquired UC and made it a wholly owned subsidiary. After learning about UC’s ownership change, the IRS ordered the sale of UC’s assets, which left UC with a significant tax liability. In 2008 and 2009, the IRS recorded tax liens against Portsmouth. Also in 2009, the IRS recorded a tax lien against Portsmouth as UC’s alter ego and imposed a civil penalty against Boggs, which Boggs paid. Portsmouth’s assets were sold in June for $1 million; the IRS received approximately $334,000 to pay UC’s liability (and immediately released the UC lien) and approximately $303,000 to partially pay Portsmouth’s liability. Portsmouth asked the IRS to refund the money used for UC, arguing that the money should have been used to pay Portsmouth’s liability. Boggs also asked the IRS to refund his civil-penalty payment, arguing that Portsmouth’s assets should have paid it. Portsmouth and Boggs sued the United States (defendant), seeking the refunds. The district court dismissed the claims on subject-matter-jurisdiction grounds, ruling that 28 U.S.C. §§ 6325(b)(4) and 7426(a)(4), with which Portsmouth and Boggs did not comply, provided the exclusive means to challenge a lien placed on a plaintiff’s property due to another party’s tax liability. Portsmouth and Boggs appealed, arguing that (1) §§ 6325(b)(4) and 7426(a)(4) applied only in cases involving third-party tax liability, but the IRS treated Portsmouth and UC as alter egos; (2) the IRS released its UC lien instead of issuing a certificate of discharge (certificate), which prevented compliance with §§ 6325(b)(4) and 7426(a)(4); and (3) they could not request a certificate because the IRS immediately released the UC lien.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Daughtrey, 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 832,000 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 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 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
  • 46,500 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