United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami
Division. No. 92-1054-CIV. Aug. 27, 1993. Related
References: U.S. v. Mathewson, 839 F.Supp. 858, 72 A.F.T.R.2d 93-6002,
93-2 USTC P 50,595 (S.D.Fla. Aug 27, 1993) (NO. 92-1054-CIV-DAVIS) SUBSEQUENT
HISTORY: Declined
to Follow by: Fisher v. U.S., 61 F.Supp.2d 621, 83 A.F.T.R.2d 99-2065,
99-1 USTC P 50,462 (E.D.Mich. Mar. 31, 1999) (No. 97-CV-73218-DT)
EDWARD B.
DAVIS, District Judge. Before the
Court is Defendants Motion for Dissolution of Lien and Return of
Surety. (D.E. 54.) The United
States is suing the Defendant, John Mathewson, for allegedly failing to pay his
income taxes. On February 20, 1993, the Defendant was seized under a Writ of Ne
Exeat Republica. Shortly thereafter, the Court modified the terms of the Writ,
imposing a $1,000,000.00 personal surety bond with a 10% deposit requirement.
(See Mem. & Order of Feb. 25, 1993.) The Defendant complied with the bond
terms by delivering a cashiers check for $100,000.00, which listed
Guardian Bank & Trust (Cayman) Ltd. as remitter. The Clerk issued a receipt
to John Mathewson c/o Guardian Bank & Trust (Cayman). Ultimately,
upon motion, the Court dissolved the Writ entirely and discharged the bond.
(Order Dissolving Writ, Mar. 18, 1993.) The next day, the Internal Revenue
Service served a Form 668-A Notice of Levy upon the Clerk of the Court. (D.E.
51.) The Notice explains that Mr. Mathewson owes [*858]
over $11,000,000 in taxes, and demands that the Court surrender to the IRS the
money held on his behalf. Now the
Defendant asks the Court to return the $100,000 deposit rather than honor the
IRS levy. He argues that the Government may only levy his property,
and that the funds in the Courts registry are not his, so the funds
must be returned. In support of the Motion, the Defendant supplies the
affidavit of Martin ONeill. Mr. ONeill claims that the
deposited money is his; ostensibly, he advanced the funds on the Defendants
behalf, but never surrendered his rights to them. Mr. ONeills
claim is corroborated by a letter from Robert OMoyle, Senior Vice
President of Guardian Bank and Trust (Cayman) Ltd. The Defendant
misconstrues the nature of an administrative levy. The levy action does not
settle rights to the seized property; it merely preserves the property to
satisfy the debt owed to the Government. United States v. National Bank of
Commerce, 472 U.S. 713, 728, 105 S.Ct.
2919, 2928, 86 L.Ed.2d 565 (1985). Other claimants may bring a separate civil
action against the United States for the return of their property. See id.
(discussing claims through 26 U.S.C. §§ 6343(b),
7426); United States v. Doyal, 462 F.2d 1357, 1358 (5th Cir.1972). Indeed, to the extent this
Motion is based on Mr. ONeills rights, the Defendants
standing is dubious. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND
ADJUDGED that the Motion is DENIED. In compliance with the Internal Revenue
Services Notice of Levy, the Clerk shall surrender to the United
States Internal Revenue Service any funds held in the Courts registry
on behalf of the Defendant, John Mathewson. |