Powers v. Gibbs
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12302 (1989)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendant) determined that Powers (plaintiff) had underpaid his taxes and issued Powers a notice of deficiency. Powers did not petition the United States Tax Court for redetermination, and so the IRS began the process of assessing the deficiency against Powers. The IRS followed all the required statutory procedures for assessing the deficiency, although the IRS either did not create or lost track of the Form 23C, which typically memorialized such procedures. After having assessed the deficiency, the IRS sent Powers a postassessment notice demanding payment. After Powers failed to pay, the IRS began to levy Powers’s wages. Powers sued the IRS in district court, seeking both an injunction halting the IRS’s attempts to collect the taxes and damages for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. Powers argued that the IRS’s collections efforts were unlawful because the IRS was unable to produce a completed Form 23C; Powers alleged that such failure meant the IRS had never properly assessed the deficiency. Moreover, Powers alleged that he was unable to provide for his family while the IRS levied his wages. The IRS filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Powers’s suit was barred by § 7421 of the Internal Revenue Code (code), also known as the Anti-Injunction Act.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hogan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.
