EIGHTH STREET BAPTIST CHURCH, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the plaintiff was not the taxpayer entitled to recover withheld taxes.
The plaintiff, a church, withheld federal income taxes from its employees' wages and paid them to the United States. The church then sued for a refund…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Suit For Refund Of Federal Income Taxes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The plaintiff-appellant Eighth Street Baptist Church sued for refund of federal income taxes withheld by it under 26 U.S.C. § 3402 and paid to the United States. The district court held that the application of these withholding requirements did not violate the Church's rights and privileges under the First Amendment. On this appeal we are met with the threshold issue of federal court jurisdiction.
The Church withheld federal income taxes on the wages of its organist, pianist, choir director, janitor, and clerk in the claimed amount of $5,112.06. Jurisdiction is asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1346. Subsection (a) (1) thereof provides that the United States District Courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action against the United States for the “recovery” of any tax, penalty, or sum erroneously or illegally assessed or collected under the internal revenue law. This statute has been construed to permit only actions brought by taxpayers. Phillips v. United States, 2 Cir., 346 F. 2d 999, 1000, and First National Bank of Emlenton v. United States, 3 Cir., 265 F. 2d 297, 299-300.
Here, the Church is not the taxpayer; it is merely the collection agent for its taxpayer-employees. See Jules Hairstylists of Maryland, Inc. v. United States, Md., 268 F.Supp. 511, 513, affirmed 4 Cir., 389 F. 2d 389, cert. denied 391 U.S. 934, 88 S.Ct. 1847, 20 L.Ed.2d 854. The withheld sums become “prepaid income tax” when received by the Treasury Department and are refundable to the taxpayer-employee, not to the withholding employer. Cf. 26 U.S.C. § 6513(b). Because § 1346 is a waiver of sovereign immunity, it must be narrowly construed. Phillips v. United States, supra. If the amount claimed was wrongfully assessed and collected, the employees, not the Church, would be entitled to sue. The Church is not the taxpayer entitled to “recovery” and accordingly the district court did not have jurisdiction under § 1346(a) (1).
The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edvige ML Busse v. The United States, 542 F.2d 421 (7th Cir. 1976)
-
Snodgrass v. United States, 834 F.2d 537 (5th Cir. 1987)
-
Hofheinz v. United States, 511 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1975)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- First Nat'l Bank of Emlenton v. United States, 265 F.2d 297 (3d Cir. 1959)
- Phillips v. United States, 346 F.2d 999 (2d Cir. 1965)
- Palmieri v. Florida, 391 U.S. 934 (U.S. 1968)
- Sidary v. United States, 391 U.S. 934 (U.S. 1968)
- Jules Hairstylists OF Md., Inc. v. United States & Irving Machiz, 389 F.2d 389 (4th Cir. 1968)