Notes of Decisions
Cited in
67
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case:
Wagstaff v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 99 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
Wagstaff v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 99 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
· cites it 7× “Nonetheless, the legal authority for Treasury to offset a taxpayer’s income tax refunds is not derived from a promissory note, but the congressional authorization provided by 31 U.S.C. § 3720A. See Wagstaff II, Docket No.”
Greene v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl. 636 (Fed. Cl. 2015).
· cites it 13× “Pro Se Plaintiff; Summary Judgment; RCFC 56; 31 U.S.C. § 3720A; Motion to Compel; Motion to Stay; Illegal Exaction; Offset; Notice; Criminal Fine; Debt; Past Due; Certification OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge Before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment…”
Kipple v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 773 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
· cites it 8× “See 31 U.S.C. § 3720A (2006). These funds are then used to offset the delinquent debt.”
Hicks v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 222 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
· cites it 5× “§ 3716 (c)(6), and 31 U.S.C § 3720A(a). As relief, plaintiff seeks a “[pjroper refund of federal tax overpay-ments .”
United States v. Shawn Hughes, 813 F.3d 1007 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
· cites it 4× “” At least under these circumstances, where agency action threatens to thwart the proper execution of the collection of restitution ordered by a district court criminal sentence, and where the Department of Justice’s purported readings of the sentence have triggered the actions…”
Jibril Lugman Ibrahim v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 333 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
· cites it 4× “§ 6402 (d) (2012) (describing how the Treasury collects debts owed to other federal agencies); 31 U.S.C. § 3720A (2006) (explaining when the Treasury will reduce a taxpayer’s refund by the amount of a debt owed to another federal agency).”
Gerrard v. United States Off. of Educ., 656 F. Supp. 570 (N.D. Cal. 1987).
· cites it 4× “494 , 1153 (codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3720A; 26 U.S.C. § 6402 (d)), established a two-year program allowing federal agencies to collect delinquent debts by offset against federal income tax refunds.”
In re Shortt, 277 B.R. 683 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2002).
· cites it 4× “On October 2, 2000, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3720A, AAFES placed the Debt in the Treasury Offset Program.”
Ingram v. Cuomo, 51 F. Supp. 2d 667 (M.D.N.C. 1999).
· cites it 10× “Ingram (“Plaintiff’) commenced this action in North Carolina Superior Court after his tax refunds were seized pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3720A. The refunds were withheld based on a determination by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) that Plaintiff…”
Setlech v. United States, 816 F. Supp. 161 (E.D.N.Y. 1993).
· cites it 5× “Plaintiff further opposes summary judgment on the grounds that she never received 60-day pre-offset notice from DOE as required by 31 U.S.C. § 3720A (1992 Supp.). In fact, the key issue before the court is whether DOE gave notice “ ‘reasonably calculated, under all the…”
Adeline Jones v. Lauro F. Cavazos, 889 F.2d 1043 (11th Cir. 1989).
· cites it 4× “This regulation was promulgated pursuant to the power granted to the Internal Revenue Service under 31 U.S.C.A. § 3720A (Supp.1989) and 26 U.”
31 U.S.C. § 3720A(a): 16 cases
Hicks v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 222 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
“§ 3716 (c)(6), and 31 U.S.C § 3720A(a). As relief, plaintiff seeks a “[pjroper refund of federal tax overpay-ments .”
United States v. Shawn Hughes, 813 F.3d 1007 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
“” At least under these circumstances, where agency action threatens to thwart the proper execution of the collection of restitution ordered by a district court criminal sentence, and where the Department of Justice’s purported readings of the sentence have triggered the actions…”
Wagstaff v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 99 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
“Nonetheless, the legal authority for Treasury to offset a taxpayer’s income tax refunds is not derived from a promissory note, but the congressional authorization provided by 31 U.S.C. § 3720A. See Wagstaff II, Docket No.”
Kipple v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 773 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
“See 31 U.S.C. § 3720A (2006). These funds are then used to offset the delinquent debt.”
Ingram v. Cuomo, 51 F. Supp. 2d 667 (M.D.N.C. 1999).
“Ingram (“Plaintiff’) commenced this action in North Carolina Superior Court after his tax refunds were seized pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3720A. The refunds were withheld based on a determination by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) that Plaintiff…”
31 U.S.C. § 3720A(b): 9 cases
Gerrard v. United States Off. of Educ., 656 F. Supp. 570 (N.D. Cal. 1987).
“494 , 1153 (codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3720A; 26 U.S.C. § 6402 (d)), established a two-year program allowing federal agencies to collect delinquent debts by offset against federal income tax refunds.”
In re Shortt, 277 B.R. 683 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2002).
“On October 2, 2000, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3720A, AAFES placed the Debt in the Treasury Offset Program.”
Adeline Jones v. Lauro F. Cavazos, 889 F.2d 1043 (11th Cir. 1989).
“This regulation was promulgated pursuant to the power granted to the Internal Revenue Service under 31 U.S.C.A. § 3720A (Supp.1989) and 26 U.”
Setlech v. United States, 816 F. Supp. 161 (E.D.N.Y. 1993).
“Plaintiff further opposes summary judgment on the grounds that she never received 60-day pre-offset notice from DOE as required by 31 U.S.C. § 3720A (1992 Supp.). In fact, the key issue before the court is whether DOE gave notice “ ‘reasonably calculated, under all the…”
31 U.S.C. § 3720A(b)(2): 3 cases
Kipple v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 773 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
“See 31 U.S.C. § 3720A (2006). These funds are then used to offset the delinquent debt.”
31 U.S.C. § 3720A(b)(3): 1 case
31 U.S.C. § 3720A(b)(5): 2 cases
Kipple v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 773 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
“See 31 U.S.C. § 3720A (2006). These funds are then used to offset the delinquent debt.”
31 U.S.C. § 3720A(b)(l): 3 cases
Kipple v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 773 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
“See 31 U.S.C. § 3720A (2006). These funds are then used to offset the delinquent debt.”
31 U.S.C. § 3720A(c): 5 cases
Wagstaff v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 99 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
“Nonetheless, the legal authority for Treasury to offset a taxpayer’s income tax refunds is not derived from a promissory note, but the congressional authorization provided by 31 U.S.C. § 3720A. See Wagstaff II, Docket No.”
Jibril Lugman Ibrahim v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 333 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
“§ 6402 (d) (2012) (describing how the Treasury collects debts owed to other federal agencies); 31 U.S.C. § 3720A (2006) (explaining when the Treasury will reduce a taxpayer’s refund by the amount of a debt owed to another federal agency).”
Greene v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl. 636 (Fed. Cl. 2015).
“Pro Se Plaintiff; Summary Judgment; RCFC 56; 31 U.S.C. § 3720A; Motion to Compel; Motion to Stay; Illegal Exaction; Offset; Notice; Criminal Fine; Debt; Past Due; Certification OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge Before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment…”
31 U.S.C. § 3720A(d): 3 cases
Gerrard v. United States Off. of Educ., 656 F. Supp. 570 (N.D. Cal. 1987).
“494 , 1153 (codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3720A; 26 U.S.C. § 6402 (d)), established a two-year program allowing federal agencies to collect delinquent debts by offset against federal income tax refunds.”
31 U.S.C. § 3720A(e): 2 cases
Jibril Lugman Ibrahim v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 333 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
“§ 6402 (d) (2012) (describing how the Treasury collects debts owed to other federal agencies); 31 U.S.C. § 3720A (2006) (explaining when the Treasury will reduce a taxpayer’s refund by the amount of a debt owed to another federal agency).”
31 U.S.C. § 3720A(g): 1 case
31 U.S.C. § 3720A(h)(l)(A): 1 case
Greene v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl. 636 (Fed. Cl. 2015).
“Pro Se Plaintiff; Summary Judgment; RCFC 56; 31 U.S.C. § 3720A; Motion to Compel; Motion to Stay; Illegal Exaction; Offset; Notice; Criminal Fine; Debt; Past Due; Certification OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge Before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment…”
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.