December 20, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 93-1434
ANDREW TEMPELMAN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
CECILE POTVIN, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
Before
Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
______________
___________________
Andrew and Priscilla Tempelman on brief pro se.
______________________________
Michael L. Paup, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Tax
_________________
Division, Gary R. Allen, Charles E. Brookhart and Scott P.
_______________ ______________________ ________
Towers, Attorneys, Tax Division, Department of Justice, on brief
______
for appellees.
__________________
__________________
Per Curiam. Plaintiffs appeal from the dismissal of a
__________
complaint in which they advanced three related claims
pertaining to a tax lien. As the lien has now been lifted (a
fact first disclosed only after judgment by way of a motion
for reconsideration), their claim under 28 U.S.C. 2410 to
"quiet title" to property is now moot. In turn, we agree
with the district court that, as set forth in the complaint,
both the refund claim (brought under 28 U.S.C. 1346 and 26
U.S.C. 7422) and the damages claim (brought under 26 U.S.C.
7432) were barred on jurisdictional grounds, given that,
inter alia, the underlying assessments were never paid. See,
__________ ___
e.g., McMillen v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 960 F.2d 187, 188-
____ ________ _______________________
90 (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam). And considering the timing
of the disclosure as to the lien's release, we cannot say
that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion
for reconsideration, particularly since such denial was
without prejudice to the filing of a new action under 7432
(or some related provision) with regard to such release.
We need not now decide whether the normal prerequisites
to such a suit--exhaustion of administrative remedies, see 26
___
U.S.C. 7432(d)(1), and payment of the underlying
assessment, see McMillen, 960 F.2d at 190--might be subject
___ ________
to relaxation in cases where the lien has been released.
See, e.g., Information Resources, Inc. v. United States, 950
___ ____ ___________________________ _____________
F.2d 1122, 1125-27 (5th Cir. 1992). Nor need we decide
-2-
whether, to the extent that the assessments at issue here
involved only corporate taxes, plaintiffs would have standing
as private individuals to pursue such relief. See, e.g., 26
___ ____
U.S.C. 7432(a) (authorizing suit by taxpayer for improper
failure to release lien "on property of the taxpayer"); In re
_____
Las Colinas Devel. Corp., 585 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1978)
___________________________
(corporations can appear in court only when represented by
counsel), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 931 (1979).
____________
We have reviewed plaintiffs' remaining claims on appeal
and find them without merit.
Affirmed.
_________
-3-