Kevin David Pomerenke v. Cheryl Bird, No. 14-1468 (8th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Civil case - Federal Tax. The district court did not err in dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, plaintiff's claim that the IRS violated the Bankruptcy Act by garnishing his wages. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1468 ___________________________ Kevin David Pomerenke lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Cheryl Bird, c/o IRS; United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: September 23, 2014 Filed: October 2, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Kevin Pomerenke appeals the district court s1 dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of his complaint claiming that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) violated the 1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. Bankruptcy Act by garnishing his wages after his tax liabilities purportedly had been discharged in prior bankruptcy proceedings. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the complaint, after appropriately substituting the United States as the defendant in this action. See 26 U.S.C. ยง 7422(a) (no suit shall be maintained in any court for recovery of internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected until claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with Secretary), and (f) (suit for recovery of IRS tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, may be maintained only against the United States and not against any of its officers or employees); see also Doe v. Nixon, 716 F.3d 1041, 1051 (8th Cir. 2013) (district court s grant of motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is reviewed de novo). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.