# Joseph T. McGinness v. United States of America, Internal Revenue Service

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · July 19, 1996 · 90 F.3d 143

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9489364

## Case

- **Full name:** Joseph T. McGINNESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 19, 1996
- **Citations:** 90 F.3d 143; 78 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5621; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 17688; 1996 WL 402554
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Contie
- **Judges:** Kennedy, Contie, Nelson
- **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9489364

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding, under Ohio law, that "[w]hile it is true that the receiver can acquire no greater legal rights or powers with respect to the property than [the taxpayer] possesses ..., the receiver’s powers are not limited to the legal rights of the debt- or-taxpayer, [because] [u]po…
- holding that “[t]he United States, as a sovereign, cannot be sued for damages without its prior 16 consent, and the terms of its consent define the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”
- holding that “[t]he United States, as a sovereign, cannot be sued for damages without its prior consent, and the terms of its consent define the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”

## Opinion text

CONTIE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Though I concur in Judge Kennedy’s opinion, I believe that the peculiar facts underlying this action present an additional basis for reversing the district court.
The record reveals that the Lake County Court of Common Pleas found Dr. Dera-khshan in contempt of court for failing to pay approximately $200,000 in alimony and child support arrearages. In an attempt to purge the contempt order, Dr. Derakhshan “gave $165,000 in Medicare claims to the receiver who, in turn, submitted them to Medicare (Nationwide) for payment.” Appellant’s Brief at 8. Because Dr. Derakhshan assigned the right to receive these funds to the court-appointed receiver in an effort to purge the existing contempt order, McGinness clearly obtained a legally cognizable interest in the property (ie., the right to receive the funds).
Because section 7426 “affords the exclusive remedy for an innocent third party whose property is confiscated by the IRS to satisfy another person’s tax liability,” Texas Commerce Bank-Fort Worth, N.A v. United States, 896 F.2d 152, 156 (5th Cir.1990) (citations omitted), McGinness has standing to pursue this wrongful levy action. Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of McGinness’ action must be REVERSED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9489364. Public record. Not legal advice.