United States v. Mark W. Jones, No. 16-1034 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Arnold and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Federal Tax. Judgment authorizing sale of property to satisfy tax liability affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1034 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Mark W. Jones lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant State of Minnesota lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: November 23, 2016 Filed: December 1, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Mark Jones appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in this action brought by the government to obtain a tax-liability judgment and an order of sale on real property. After carefully reviewing the record, and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court’s decision was proper. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (grant of summary judgment reviewed de novo); In re Harker, 357 F.3d 846, 848-49 (8th Cir. 2004) (tax assessments made by IRS are presumed correct and taxpayer bears burden to prove by preponderance of evidence that assessment is erroneous); States v. Bierbrauer, 936 F.2d 373, 374 (8th Cir. 1991) (26 U.S.C. § 7403 authorizes federal district court to order sale of property in which delinquent taxpayer has interest in order to satisfy taxpayer’s debt). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -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.
