December 20, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-