Seay v. Roberts

The plaintiff's claim that the IRS failed to properly follow its own procedure in seizing his real property to satisfy delinquent taxes was ruled against him in a previous action.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

J. R. Seay, proceeding pro se, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his action to quiet title against William Roberts. For the following reasons, we hold that the trial court did not err in dismissing Seay’s action. The IRS seized real property belonging to Seay in 1995 to satisfy delinquent taxes. Seay filed a motion in federal court for a temporary restraining order to prevent the IRS from auctioning the property, contending that the IRS had failed to follow its own administrative procedures in levying against his property and that the Federal Government lacked the authority to collect income taxes. In 2003, the District Court for the Middle District of Georgia dismissed Seay’s motion, finding Seay’s contentions meritless, and the motion presented merely to “delay and hinder” the resolution of the case. The district court further held that Seay was not entitled to injunctive relief because he had not shown that he would be entitled to permanent relief, and also because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant such relief under the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421.

In 2004, Seay once again filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and for a preliminary injunction to prevent the IRS from auctioning his property. He again asserted that the Government lacked legislative jurisdiction to sell his property. The federal district court denied Seay’s motion, finding that the issues raised by Seay were “virtually identical” to those issues raised in the previous case. The court stated that there was a “great likelihood that recovery is barred by the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel.” Id.

Seay v. Roberts

The plaintiff's claim that the IRS failed to properly follow its own procedure in seizing his real property to satisfy delinquent taxes was ruled against him in a previous action.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report