United States v. Weintraub
United States District Court for the Sixth Circuit
613 F.2d 612 (1979)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
On May 2, 1963, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assessed taxes against Frank Andrews. The next day, the IRS served Morris Weintraub (defendant) with a notice of levy pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (code) § 6332 on any Andrews property or property right in Weintraub’s possession, based on the IRS’s belief that Weintraub owed a debt to Andrews. In August, Weintraub responded that he did not possess Andrews’s property or property rights. In September 1965, Weintraub was acquitted of criminal charges of willfully failing to honor the Andrews levy and making false statements to the IRS. The IRS attempted to collect the tax debt from Andrews until 1976, when the United States sued Weintraub pursuant to § 6332(c) for failing to honor the Andrews levy. The jury ruled for the United States. Weintraub appealed, contending that the United States’ suit was barred by the equitable doctrine of laches and the statute of limitations. Regarding laches, Weintraub claimed that he was prejudiced by the loss of documents and the death of key witnesses. Regarding the statute of limitations, Weintraub cited code § 6502, which at the time required the IRS to attempt to collect a tax within six years of assessing the tax. The United States responded that under the doctrine of nullus tempus occurrit regi (nullus tempus) (1) it was categorically not subject to laches and (2) § 6502 was inapplicable to § 6332.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Celebrezze, J.)
Concurrence (Keith, J.)
Dissent (Merritt, 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. 46,400 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.