Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Donahue Industries, Inc., Dba Donahue Printing Company, and Rainier National Bank

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided June 18, 1990No. 88-4354Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWallace, Circuit Judge

I concur in parts I and II of the majority opinion. However, because I do not think Rainier should be penalized for litigating this case, I dissent from part III of the majority opinion.

As the majority explains, supra at 1331, a penalty should not be imposed “in cases where [a] bona fide dispute exists concerning the ... legal effectiveness of the levy.” 26 C.F.R. § 301.6332-l(b)(2) (1989). Elaborating on this standard, the majority adopts the Second Circuit’s conclusion in United States v. Sterling Bank & Trust Co., 494 F.2d 919 (2d Cir.1974), that a bona fide legal dispute exists when there…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. United States v. BessSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  2. United States v. Sterling National Bank & Trust Company of New York, and Third-Party v. Charles S. Smith, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
  3. United States v. Bank of CelinaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
  4. Pittsburgh National Bank v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981
  5. Thomas Jerry Myers v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API