Stickney v. Internal Revenue Service

MEMORANDUM * Appellant Sandra Stickney (Stickney) challenges the district court’s ruling that a transmutation of residential property interests from community property to tenancies in common constituted a fraudulent transfer. Although it appears that the district court’s ruling on the merits was supported by the record, the district court lacked jurisdiction because Stickney failed to establish that “[her] action falls within an unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign immunity ...” Dunn & Black, P.S. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir.2007) (citation omitted). 1. The district court lacked jurisdiction over Stickney’s quiet title action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2410 . See Dunn & Black, 492 F.3d at 1092 n. 9 (“[A] plaintiff cannot seek relief for monies or property already in the hands of the IRS in a § 2410 quiet title action.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2. The district court also lacked jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 , which applies only to the direct taxpayer and not to *617 third parties such as Stickney. See Allied/Royal Parking L.P. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir.1999). 3. For the same reason, 26 U.S.C. § 7432 did not confer jurisdiction. See Soghomonian v. United States, 82 F.Supp.2d 1134, 1143 (ED.Cal.1999); cf. Allied/Royal Parking, 166 F.3d 1000 at 1003 . 4. Finally, jurisdiction was lacking under 26 U.S.C. § 7426 , as Stickney’s action did not involve a wrongful levy or a substituted fund. See Sessler v. United States, 7 F.3d 1449, 1451-52 (9th Cir.1993) (“[Election 7426 is not a broad grant of jurisdiction for suit brought by any third-party interest-holder; it only waives immunity when there’s been a wrongful levy.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 537-38 , 115 S.Ct. 1611 , 131 L.Ed.2d 608 (1995). VACATED and REMANDED for dismissal. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.