UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Name: ''Hook v. United States''
Author: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

''Hook v. United States'' (2015)

Summary

“''Hook v. United States''”, published in 2015, is a work by UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. It explores elements such as tax liabilities, plaintiffs and Hook.

Quotes from ''Hook v. United States'' (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, ''Hook v. United States'' (2015)

“ Hook does not directly challenge that ruling but takes issue with the court’s statement (made in deciding that a judicial exception to the TAIA did not apply) that "the harm of which Plaintiffs complain—the loss of income – appears to be self-inflicted as it results from Plaintiffs' failure to pay their tax liabilities, liabilities which they have repeatedly challenged and lost and for which they have not shown have been overpaid." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, ''Hook v. United States'' (2015)

“ Because Ms. Hook does not explain how the amended complaint accounts for interest and penalties (and it is not obvious from the amended complaint, which lists only the original tax liabilities as determined by the Tax Court) , we reject the notion that there was a material jurisdictional-fact issue in dispute with regard to the refund claim. Further, the fact that plaintiffs failed to show that the tax liabilities were paid forecloses Ms. Hook’s challenge to the district court dismissal of the claim for release of levies and return of levied property. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, ''Hook v. United States'' (2015)

“ We conclude that, because Chief Judge Krieger’s jurisdictional ruling was interlocutory, the law-of-the-case doctrine is not applicable to it, and therefore Judge Moore was not bound by it. " [D] istrict courts generally remain free to reconsider their earlier interlocutory orders," and the law-of-the-case-doctrine does not apply “to rulings revisited prior to entry of a final judgment." Rimbert v. Eli Lilly & Co., 647 F.3d 1247, 1251 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) . This is so “even when a case is reassigned from one judge to another in the same court . ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, ''Hook v. United States'' (2015)

“ They have been litigating their federal income tax liabilities for the last fifteen years in various courts, including this one. [3]
In the instant action, plaintiffs sought a credit or refund of nearly $1 million (plus any future increases in their tax liability due to allegedly improper levies on Mr. Smith’s social security benefits payments) for payment or overpayment of federal income taxes, penalties, and interest for tax years 1992-1996 and 2001-2006. They also requested an abatement of penalties for those tax years; actual damages; the release of all federal tax liens ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, ''Hook v. United States'' (2015)

“ Aplt. App. at 25. Chief Judge Krieger permitted amendment of the complaint to address alleged jurisdictional defects in plaintiffs’ particular claims. That is precisely what plaintiffs attempted to do in their amended complaint. After the case was reassigned to Judge Moore, the government moved to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction, thereby giving Ms. Hook sufficient notice that Judge Moore would be revisiting the issue and an opportunity to be heard on that issue. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, ''Hook v. United States'' (2015)

“ Tibbs’s declaration and supporting exhibits established that the accounting in the amended complaint was faulty in omitting substantial statutory interest and penalties, both of which are treated as taxes under the Internal Revenue Code. See 26 U.S.C. § 6601 (e) (1) (interest is treated "in same manner as taxes" for assessment and collection purposes) ; id. § 6671 (same with respect to penalties) ; Magnone, 902 F.2d at 193 (same with respect to interest and penalties) ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, ''Hook v. United States'' (2015)

“ See Smith v. Plati, 258 F.3d 1167, 1174 (10th Cir. 2001) . We review de novo the district court’s Rule 12 (b) (1) and 12 (b) (6) dismissal of plaintiffs’ amended complaint. See Colo. Envtl. Coal. v. Wenker, 353 F.3d 1221, 1227 (10th Cir. 2004) . None of Ms. Hook’s arguments persuade us that the dismissal was in error.
A. Law of the case
Ms. Hook takes issue with the magistrate judge’s and Judge Moore’s refusal to follow what she claims was law of the case with regard to subject matter jurisdiction. ”

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Summary

Quotes from ''Hook v. United States'' (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature