28 U.S.C. § 1396
Internal revenue taxes
Any civil action for the collection of internal revenue taxes may be brought in the district where the liability for such tax accrues, in the district of the taxpayer’s residence, or in the district where the return was filed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1951–2026 · leading case: Marve A. Dubin v. United States, 380 F.2d 813 (5th Cir. 1967).
Marve A. Dubin v. United States, 380 F.2d 813 (5th Cir. 1967). “§ 1406 (a)] provides: “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”
Ve Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “28 U.S.C. § 1396 . 12 . 28 U.S.C. § 1398 .”
Ciccotelli v. United States, 545 F. Supp. 2d 609 (W.D. Tex. 2008). “In their Complaint, Plaintiffs erroneously assert venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1396 . Compl. ¶ 4. Section 1396 only applies when the IRS files a lawsuit to collect taxes.”
Mayo Clinic, Edward S. Judd & D. O. Ferris v. Edward Kaiser, 383 F.2d 653 (8th Cir. 1967). “§ 1396 provides that such an action may be brought in the district where the liability for the tax accrues, in the district of the taxpayer’s residence, or in the district where the return is filed, and, therefore, the suit was brought in a permissible forum under the venue…”
Shong Ching Lau v. Change, 415 F. Supp. 627 (E.D. Pa. 1976). “The district court also found that, because venue was properly laid in that district under 28 U.S.C. § 1396 , the case could not be transferred under § 1406(a) which, by its terms is only applicable to a case laying venue in the wrong division or district.”
United States v. Berkowitz, 328 F.2d 358 (3rd Cir. 1964). “” The district court reasoned that because the tax liability arose in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and as the tax returns were filed there, venue was properly laid in that district under 28 U.S.C. § 1396 . 2 The court concluded that the action could not be transferred…”
Jerrytone v. Musto, 167 F. App'x 295 (3rd Cir. 2006). “Furthermore, the District Court did not err in dismissing without prejudice Jerry-tone’s related state law tort claims because in a case in which the District Court dismisses all of the federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction before trial, it should also dismiss…”
Schoot v. United States, 664 F. Supp. 293 (N.D. Ill. 1987). “If the Government had to establish venue, we think that 28 U.S.C. § 1396 would establish venue in this type of action.”
Caremark, Inc. v. Goetz, 395 F. Supp. 2d 683 (M.D. Tenn. 2005). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1396 , et seq. This program became law in 1965.”
United States v. M. Jeanne Stone, 59 F.R.D. 260 (D. Del. 1973). “As so characterized, she argues that it is clearly an action which under 28 U.S.C. § 1396 must be brought either where the tax liability accrues, where the taxpayer resides, or where the tax return was filed.”
Schwarz v. United States, 191 F.2d 618 (4th Cir. 1951). “Repealed in 1949 as covered by 1948 Revised Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §1396 . 2 . The authorities cited have relation to conveyances in trust where the trust has failed; but there can be no difference in principle between such cases and one .”
Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 340 F. Supp. 400 (S.D.N.Y. 1971). “, 28 U.S.C. § 1396 ; 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. The exception in § 1391(e) was first suggested by the Department of Justice in a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.