Sally Conforte v. United States of Am., 979 F.2d 1375 (9th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Sally Conforte v. United States of Am., 979 F.2d 1375 (9th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
72 citation events (46 in the last 25 years) across 22 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rodney Skurdal v. USA, No. 23-35564 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2025)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#1 26 U.S.C. § 7506 cited 1× in this case · 6 total citations of statute
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1377 Jurisdiction over tax liability claims under section 743365 citing casesruling that 21 failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprived the court of jurisdiction over a 22 // 1 taxpayer’s damages claims regarding improper tax collection under § 7433(a)10 citing courts put it this way · 47 listed here
  • Rodney Skurdal v. USA, No. 23-35564 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2025).
    (explaining that a plaintiff “may not bring [an] action against the United States under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 without exhausting . . . administrative remedies)
  • Zhang v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 1:24-cv-00667 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2024).
    (district court lacked jurisdiction to hear action under § 7433 12 without exhaustion of administrative remedies)
  • Washington v. United States, No. 3:20-cv-05801 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2021).
    Id. (citing 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (d)(1); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir. 23 1993); 26 C.F.R. § 301.7433-1 (e)).
  • (PS) Nelson Rogers v. Enjalran, No. 2:19-cv-01564 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2020).
    (failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives the court of jurisdiction over § 7433 6 claims)
  • (PS) Greek v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-00278 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2020).
    Although Section 7433 provides for a waiver 15 of sovereign immunity in some circumstances, the court must first determine that a taxpayer 16 “exhausted the administrative remedies available to such plaintiff within the Internal Revenue 17…
  • (PS) Nelson Rogers v. Enjalran, No. 2:19-cv-01564 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020).
    (failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives the court of jurisdiction over § 7433 24 claims)
  • Barcelos v. United States (In re Barcelos), 576 B.R. 854 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2017).
    (failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (d)(1) deprives the court of jurisdiction)
  • Joel Joseph v. United States, 517 F. App'x 543 (9th Cir. 2013).
    (failure to exhaust administrative remedies under § 7433(d)(1) deprived the court of jurisdiction over a taxpayer’s damages claims regarding improper tax collection under § 7433(a))
  • Pamfila Camangian v. United States, 475 F. App'x 216 (9th Cir. 2012).
    (courts lack jurisdiction to hear actions for damages under § 7433 when plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies)
  • Scharringhausen v. United States, 686 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (S.D. Cal. 2009).
    No. 48, at 3-4) (citing Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1992).) Accordingly, the Court dismissed the first cause of action as it related to these statutes for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Show 37 more citing cases
  • Kimball v. Internal Revenue Serv., 351 F. App'x 170 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 cites
    Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1992).
  • Bowers v. J & M Disc. Towing, LLC., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (D.N.M. 2006).
    Inc. v. United States, 950 F.2d 1122, 1125 (5th Cir.1992); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1992); Glass v. United States, 424 F.Supp.2d 224, 228 (D.D.C.2006); United States v. Smith, No. 2:98CV00091K, 1999 WL 535749…
  • Lindsey v. United States, 448 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2006).
    (holding that where plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 , “[t]he court lacked jurisdiction to hear her)
  • Turner v. United States, 429 F. Supp. 2d 149 (D.D.C. 2006).
    See, e.g., Venen v. United States, 38 F.3d 100, 103 (3d Cir.1994) (“[F]ailure to comply [with the 301.7433-1(e) procedures] deprives a court of juris-dietion[.]”); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1993) (“[Plaintiff]…
  • Turner v. United States, 372 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (S.D. Ohio 2005).
    Id. (citing Venen v. United States, 38 F.3d 100, 103 (3rd Cir.1994); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1992)).
  • Gillings v. United States Internal Revenue Serv., 122 F. App'x 360 (9th Cir. 2005).
    See 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (d)(1); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1992).
  • Klimas v. Dep't of Treasury, 122 F. App'x 355 (9th Cir. 2005).
    See 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (d)(1); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1992).
  • Glass v. United States, No. 02-11370 (5th Cir. June 18, 2003).
    E.g., Koehler v. United States, 153 F.3d 263, 266 (5th Cir. 1998) (no waiver where action outside scope of 28 U.S.C. 2410(a) (authorizing action to quiet title where United States holds lien or mortgage on property); Porter v. Fox, 99 F.3d…
  • Tornichio v. United States, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (N.D. Ohio 2002).
    Venen v. Unit *1099 ed States, 38 F.3d 100, 103 (3d Cir.1994); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1992).
  • Doerfler v. United States, 26 F. App'x 749 (9th Cir. 2002).
    (applying two-year statute of limitations to I.R.C. § 7433 claims)
  • Connor v. Matthews, 134 F. Supp. 2d 797 (N.D. Tex. 2001).
    Venen v. United States, 38 F.3d 100, 103 (3d Cir.1994); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1992). (4) The Internal Revenue Code also provides a remedy for refund of taxes improperly collected. 26 U.S.C. § 7422 .
  • Devore v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (D. Nev. 2000). 2 cites
    Venen v. United States, 38 F.3d 100, 103 (3d Cir.1994); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1992).
  • Berridge v. Heiser, 993 F. Supp. 1136 (S.D. Ohio 1997).
    See 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (d)(1); Fishburn v. Brown, 125 F.3d 979, 982 (6th Cir.1997); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1992); Information Resources, Inc. v. United States, 950 F.2d 1122 , 1127-28 & n. 4 (5th Cir.1992).
  • Clyde W. Larue v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 96 F.3d 1450 (7th Cir. 1996).
    Venen v. United States, 38 F.3d 100, 103 (3d Cir.1994); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1992). 3 The district court noted that because LaRue was seeking a refund of his taxes, his suit should perhaps be construed as…
  • Charles M. Ferrel, Individual & as a Marital Cmty. Devona Ferrel v. Ann Brown, & United States of Am., 77 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 1996).
    Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1993); 26 U.S.C. § 7432 (d)(1).
  • Decker v. Richardson, 920 F. Supp. 141 (D. Or. 1996).
    Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1992).
  • Darrel Alan Travis v. United States of Am. Chad Clay Terrie Martines Derek Stigerts, Averell Brown, City of Sacramento, 53 F.3d 340 (9th Cir. 1995).
    Secs. 7432 (d)(1) & 7433(d)(1); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1992).
  • Robert B. Lemon v. M. Martin, 46 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 1995).
    Secs. 7432 (d)(1) & 7433(d)(1); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir. 1992).
  • Templeman v. Beasley, 43 F.3d 1456 (1st Cir. 1994).
    See, e.g., Venen v. United States, F.3d , 1994 WL 567016 , at * 2-* 3 (3d Cir. 1994); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir. 1992). 6 Finally, plaintiffs have sought to advance a Bivens claim against defendant in her pers…
  • Burge v. I.R.S., 39 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 1994).
    Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1992); see also 26 U.S.C. 7433(d)(1).
  • Simmons v. United States, 875 F. Supp. 318 (W.D.N.C. 1994).
    Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir. 1992); Information Resources v. United States, 950 F.2d 1122, 1125-27 (5th Cir.1992); Venen v. United States, 73 A.F.T.R.2d (P-H) para. 94-825, 1994 WL 159444 *1, 1994 U.S.Dist.
  • Leroy J. Murray v. United States, 33 F.3d 59 (9th Cir. 1994).
    Secs. 7432 (d)(1) & 7433(d)(1); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1992).
  • Chow v. Giordano, 24 F.3d 245 (9th Cir. 1994).
    Sec. 7433 (d)(1); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1993).
  • Edward Williams v. Internal Revenue Serv. Comm'r, 24 F.3d 252 (9th Cir. 1994).
    Secs. 7432 (d)(1) & 7433(d)(1); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1992).
  • Louie N. Elias v. United States, 17 F.3d 394 (9th Cir. 1994).
    Accordingly, the district court did not err by dismissing the claims set out in those eight counts. 1 II 5 The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction over two counts (VI and VII) because Elias had failed to exhaust available admin…
  • Cole, No. 2:25-cv-01989 (D. Ariz. Apr. 3, 2026).
    (district court lacked jurisdiction to hear action under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 because 25 plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies)
  • Friedmann v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 3:23-cv-05075 (W.D. Wash. May 31, 2024).
    (finding that requirement to 5 exhaust administrative remedies is jurisdictional)
  • Conner v. United States, No. 2:22-cv-01746 (D. Nev. July 13, 2023).
    That letter also failed to comply with the requirement that the taxpayer 14 include the dollar amount of the claim;24 Conner stated only that she seeks “monetary damages 15 in the amount of $ Sum-Total-Amt withheld-to-date; and accruing da…
  • United States v. Millett, No. 9:21-cv-00047 (D. Mont. July 5, 2022).
    See Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir. 1992).
  • Conner v. United States of Am., No. 2:19-cv-02241 (D. Nev. Dec. 27, 2021).
    (stating that Plaintiff could not 20 bring an action under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 without first exhausting her administrative remedies)
  • Tucker v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 2:21-cv-00467 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 7, 2021).
    See Joseph v. United States, 517 F. App’x 543 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing 3 Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir. 1992)). 4 Where Congress has created a remedy as part of a statutory scheme, that remedy 5 ordinarily excludes…
  • Rudy Castaneda v. United States, No. 19-16372 (9th Cir. Nov. 3, 2020).
    (failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprived the court of jurisdiction over a taxpayer’s damages claims regarding improper tax collection under § 7433(a))
  • Alexander v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 2:19-cv-01711 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 29, 2020).
    (ruling that 21 failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprived the court of jurisdiction over a 22 // 1 taxpayer’s damages claims regarding improper tax collection under § 7433(a))
  • William Whitsitt v. Cato, No. 18-16757 (9th Cir. July 19, 2019).
    (failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprived the court of jurisdiction over a taxpayer’s damages claims regarding improper tax collection under § 7433(a))
  • Jack Clark v. United States, 462 F. App'x 719 (9th Cir. 2011).
    See Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1993). 1 At a minimum, Clark failed to include all the information required by 26 C.F.R. § 301.7433-1 (e)(2)(i) in the administrative claims that he sent to the IRS. 2 Clark then…
  • Outdoor Media Grp., Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2007). 2 cites
    See Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1992).
  • Outdoor Media Grp. v. City of Beaumont, No. 05-56620 (9th Cir. Nov. 1, 2007).
    See Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir. 1992).
At page 1376 failure to exhaust administrative remedies under § 7433(d)(1) deprived the court of jurisdiction over a taxpayer’s damages claims regarding improper tax collection under § 7433(a)1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • Michael Manant v. United States, 498 F. App'x 752 (9th Cir. 2012).
    (failure to exhaust administrative remedies under § 7433(d)(1) deprived the court of jurisdiction over a taxpayer’s damages claims regarding improper tax collection under § 7433(a))
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sally CONFORTE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Et Al., Defendant-Appellee
91-16713.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jan 28, 1993.
979 F.2d 1375
1992 WL 335808
Darrell V. Rippy, Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellant., Joel Rabinovitz, Tax Div., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellee.
Choy, Noonan, O'Scannlain.
Cited by 67 opinions  |  Published
NOONAN, Circuit Judge:

With tax liabilities of over $17 million, Sally Conforte has brought this action in an effort to get a $15 million credit against these liabilities, asserted by her to be the going concern value of her brothel, now levied upon and sold by the United States. Her effort to litigate her tax liabilities in this fashion fails. We dismiss those causes of action of which the district court had no jurisdiction. We affirm summary judgment against Conforte as to those causes of action over which the district court had jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Conforte was the owner with her husband Joseph of the Mustang Ranch, a brothel legal under the law of Storey County, Nevada. The Confortes incurred liability for unpaid federal income and employment taxes in an amount over $19 million. On November 26, 1982 Sally Conforte filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. In 1984 the bankruptcy court approved a plan of reorganization that permitted the Mustang Ranch to operate for six years, during which all claims were to be paid. By 1990 the tax debt was still largely unpaid. The Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) gave the Confortes several extensions, and the Confortes conveyed to the United States title to 12 lots of real property to be sold by the United States with the sum realized to be credited to partial satisfaction of the tax claims. But in September 1990 the IRS, still the largest unpaid creditor, asked the bankruptcy court to convert the case to Chapter 7. The bankruptcy court so ordered. The trustee in bankruptcy found it impossible to run the brothel legally. On September 21, 1990, pursuant to an order of the bankruptcy court, the trustee turned over, and the IRS levied upon pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 6331(a), the Mustang Ranch. On November 13, 14 and 15 the IRS conducted a sale of this property, receiving $1,991,000. A large tax debt remained.

CONFORTE’S COMPLAINT

On May 3, 1991 Conforte filed her amended complaint in this case. The causes of action set out were as follows:

First and Second. To quiet title to the 12 lots conveyed to the United States in 1990. Conforte asserted that the United States had only a tax lien on this property and that the tax had been “fully paid.”

Third and Fourth. Violation of Con-forte’s rights under the Fifth Amendment[*1377] by the individual defendants, officers or employees of the. Internal Revenue Service, wasting Conforte’s property by not selling the Mustang Ranch at its going concern value.

Fifth. Reckless and intentional disregard by the individual defendants of the Internal Revenue Code and regulations thereunder.

The plaintiff sought clear title to the lots; damages of $15 million from the individual defendants; and damages from the United States under Internal Revenue Code § 7433 of $100,000.

The district court granted summary judgment on all causes of action. Conforte appeals.

ANALYSIS

The Quiet Title Action. The gravamen of Conforte’s suit here is that her federal taxes are “fully paid.” She is, in other words, litigating her federal tax liability, avoiding the three standard routes prescribed by statute: suit in the tax court, suit for refund in the district court, or suit in the court of federal claims. She cannot in this fashion run around the law. A quiet title action “may only contest the procedural validity of a tax lien.” Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 527 (9th Cir.1990). This, rule, stated as to quiet title actions under 28 U.S.C. § 2410, is equally applicable to quiet title actions under section 2409(a).' The provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 7506(d) permitting release of property conveyed to the United States as security for a'debt if the debt is paid have no relevance here; the debt was not paid. The district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the two.causes of action that challenged her tax liability, and they must accordingly be dismissed. The question was not addressed by the district court, but jurisdiction is open to challenge at any time.

The Taking of Property Actions. These causes assert injury by individuals to Conforte because the Mustang Ranch was not sold as a going concern. They fail for two reasons: first, it was the trustee in bankruptcy, not the IRS, who found it impossible to continue to operate the Mustang Ranch as a legal going concern; second, when the IRS levies upon property, it has the right to sell the property as levied upon — here as property that is no longer in business but in the possession of the IRS and in liquidation. Such property is valued at its liquidation price, see, e.g., United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U.S. 198, 200, 103 S.Ct. 2309, 2311, 76 L.Ed.2d 515 (1983). Conforte complains of normal practice. Summary judgment was properly granted the defendants.

The Intentional Or Reckless Disregard Of the Rules Action. Conforte may not bring this action against the United States under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 without exhausting her administrative remedies. Id. § 7433(d)(1). She has not done so. The court lacked jurisdiction to hear her. The two year period set by the statute of limitations has now run. Id. § 7433(d)(3).

Conforte’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the first, second and fifth causes of action. Summary judgment against Conforte on the third and fourth causes of action is AFFIRMED.