Vanessa Shaw v. United States

Case: 12-13449 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13449
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cv-00481-UA-SPC
VANESSA SHAW,
Plaintiff-Appellant.
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 23, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-13449 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 2 of 3
The District Court denied Vanessa Shaw’s petition to quash an Internal
Revenue Service (“IRS”) summons served on Bank of America on the ground that
it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the petition because the Government had
not waived its sovereign immunity. Shaw, proceeding pro se, now appeals the
ruling, arguing that the court erred in denying her petition and that she was entitled
to a hearing regarding the IRS officer’s authority to issue the summons and the
validity of the tax assessments against her. We affirm.
We review questions of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Palmer v.
Braun, 376 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2004). Under principles of sovereign
immunity, the government is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued.
Mutual Assurance, Inc. v. United States, 56 F.3d 1353, 1355 (11th Cir.
1995). The terms of the consent to be sued define the court's jurisdiction to
entertain a suit. Id. Under 26 U.S.C. § 7609(b)(2)(A), the government
allows a person who is entitled to notice of a summons under subsection (a)
to bring an action to quash the summons. 26 U.S.C. § 7609(b)(2)(A).
Where the summons is issued in aid of collection of an assessment made or
judgment rendered against the person with respect to whose liability the
summons is issued, that person is not entitled to notice. 26 U.S.C. §
7609(c)(2)(D)(i).
2
Case: 12-13449 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 3 of 3
We agree with the District Court that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to
entertain Shaw’s petition to quash the IRS summons. Because the IRS officer
issued a summons on Bank of America for the purpose of aiding in the collection
of her assessed tax liabilities, Shaw was not entitled to notice of the summons, and
therefore, the Government did not waive sovereign immunity under 26 U.S.C.
§ 7609(b)(2)(A) with respect to her petition to quash the summons. See 26 U.S.C.
§§ 7609(b)(2)(A), (c)(2)(D)(i). In sum, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
over the petition to quash the summons. See Mutual Assurance, 56 F.3d at 1355.
Because the court lacked jurisdiction, it did not abuse its discretion in deny Shaw a
hearing.
AFFIRMED.
3