court on this issue. F. The case could be removed despite the fact that the plaintiffs named the IRS in their suit rather than the United States The Butcher defendants next argue that because the plaintiffs named the IRS in their original complaint and in their amended complaint rather than the United States, the action cannot be removed to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1444. This section allows for the removal of any case where suit is brought against the United States regarding one of its liens. Even though the Butcher defendants are correct that the IRS has no capacity to be sued, and that the plaintiffs should have named the United States as a party instead of the IRS, such defects are not fatal. See Labry v. Internal Revenue Serv., 940 F.Supp. 148, 149 (E.D.La.1996) (<HOLDING>); Bernard v. Internal Revenue Service, No.
holding that a proper eleventh amendment challenge strips the courts of jurisdiction for the purposes of the removal statute 28 usc  1447c holding that venue for litigation was proper based on 28 usc  1441 regardless of whether defendant was doing business in the district within the meaning of 28 usc  1391 holding that although the united states rather than the irs was the proper party a misnomer does not preclude removal under 28 usc  1444 recognizing that section 1498 rather than the tucker act 28 usc  1491a grants this court jurisdiction over patent infringement claims against the united states holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction   depends upon the district court finding subject matter jurisdiction under 28 usc  1330a and proper service under 28 usc  1608