Keohane v. United States
399 U.S. App. D.C. 268
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Keohane earned income in Indonesia in 1994 and owed about $10,000 in federal taxes.
- IRS issued a single paper levy in 2005 to withhold Social Security benefits, automatically taking about 35–40% monthly for two years.
- Keohane learned of the levy in 2005 but incurred $373 in costs due to the levy actions.
- Keohane filed a late 1994 tax return in 2007 and settled the debt; he then sued in 2008 under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 seeking damages and costs.
- District Court held the action timely or not?; ultimately dismissed on limitations grounds under § 7433(d)(3).
- Court reviews whether the two-year statute of limitations applies and when the right of action accrues under the regulations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 7433(d)(3) statute of limitations bars suit. | Keohane argues a continuing violation tolls period. | IRS argues accrual occurred when Keohane discovered or should have discovered the injury. | Limitations bar due to accrual by June 2005. |
| Whether the continuing violation doctrine applies to extend the period. | Keohane relies on continuing violation since injury continued. | Doctrine does not apply because key injury was discoverable when levy started. | Continuing violation doctrine does not apply. |
| Whether § 7433(d)(3) is jurisdictional or claims-processing, affecting analysis. | Argues it is jurisdictional. | Regarded as a non-jurisdictional statute-of-limitations rule. | Not jurisdictional; affirmed dismissal on limitations grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kovacs v. United States, 614 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2010) (accrual under 301.7433-1(g)(2) adopts a reasonable-opportunity standard)
- Taylor v. FDIC, 132 F.3d 753 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (continuing violation doctrine described; framework for when it applies)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (S. Ct. 2002) (describes cumulative/continuing effects in tolling claims; hostile environment analogy)
- Macklin v. United States, 300 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2002) (continuing-violation discussion; no tolling here)
- Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197 (S. Ct. 2011) (conceptual test for jurisdictional versus non-jurisdictional rules)