§7402 — Jurisdiction of district courts

21 cases·8 followed·3 overruled·10 cited38% support

(a)To issue orders, processes, and judgments

The district courts of the United States at the instance of the United States shall have such jurisdiction to make and issue in civil actions, writs and orders of injunction, and of ne exeat republica, orders appointing receivers, and such other orders and processes, and to render such judgments and decrees as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws. The remedies hereby provided are in addition to and not exclusive of any and all other remedies of the United States in such courts or otherwise to enforce such laws.

(b)To enforce summons

If any person is summoned under the internal revenue laws to appear, to testify, or to produce books, papers, or other data, the district court of the United States for the district in which such person resides or may be found shall have jurisdiction by appropriate process to compel such attendance, testimony, or production of books, papers, or other data.

(c)For damages to United States officers or employees

Any officer or employee of the United States acting under authority of this title, or any person acting under or by authority of any such officer or employee, receiving any injury to his person or property in the discharge of his duty shall be entitled to maintain an action for damages therefor, in the district court of the United States, in the district wherein the party doing the injury may reside or shall be found.

(d)Repealed. Pub. L. 92–310, title II, § 230(d), June 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 209]
(e)To quiet title

The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction of any action brought by the United States to quiet title to property if the title claimed by the United States to such property was derived from enforcement of a lien under this title.

(f)General jurisdiction

For general jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States in civil actions involving internal revenue, see section 1340 of title 28 of the United States Code.

21 Citing Cases

The complaint sought to recover the Hendricksons' refunds issued -8- [*8] "as a result ofthe misrepresentations * * * [the Hendricksons] made on their 2002 and 2003 Form 1040 tax returns and to enjoin defendants under IRC § 7402 from filing a false and fraudulent tax returns and forms with the Internal Revenue Service." The complaint further states that Mr.

Yvonne E. Thurner, Petitioner 121 T.C. No. 3 · 2003

The District Court collection action was initiated on January 7, 2000, well after the July 22, 1998, effective date of section 6015. Thus, petitioners could have (but did not) raise their claims for relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 as a defense in the District Court collection action. Cf. United States v. Shanba

Scott P. Thurner, Petitioner 121 T.C. No. 3 · 2003

The District Court collection action was initiated on January 7, 2000, well after the July 22, 1998, effective date of section 6015. Thus, petitioners could have (but did not) raise their claims for relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 as a defense in the District Court collection action. Cf. United States v. Shanba

Thurner v. Commissioner 121 T.C. 43 · 2003

The District Court collection action was initiated on January 7, 2000, well after the July 22, 1998, effective date of section 6015. Thus, petitioners could have (but did not) raise their claims for relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 as a defense in the District Court collection action. Cf. United States v. Shanba

Interworks Systems Inc. v. Merchant Financial Corp. 604 F.3d 692 · Cir.
Interworks Sys. Inc. v. Merchant Fin. Corp. · Cir.
Maehr v. U.S. Department of State 5 F.4th 1100 · Cir.
United States v. Stover 650 F.3d 1099 · Cir.
United States v. Daryl Kollman 774 F.3d 592 · Cir.
United States v. Raymond, Robert R. 228 F.3d 804 · Cir.
United States v. Bell · Cir.
United States v. A. Stover, Jr. · Cir.
United States v. Swartzendruber 14 F. App'x 741 · Cir.
United States v. Robert R. Raymond, Individually and Doing Business as Morningstar Consultants, and Robert G. Bernhoft, Individually and Doing Business as Morningstar Consultants 228 F.3d 804 · Cir.
United States v. Thurston Paul Bell 414 F.3d 474 · Cir.
Shaheen v. Commissioner 62 T.C. 359 · 1974
United States v. Tobias Elsass 769 F.3d 390 · Cir.
United States v. Finley Hilliard 798 F.3d 296 · Cir.
Leathers v. Leathers 856 F.3d 729 · Cir.
United States v. Gary Cardaci 856 F.3d 267 · Cir.
United States v. Barbara Coney 689 F.3d 365 · Cir.

New cases, delivered.

Get notified when new Tax Court opinions drop.