United States of America v. Kidwell

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 2/22/17: 12 Motion for Summary be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Judgment shall be entered against defendant in the amount of $96,532.44 plus any associated penalties, fines, and interest that will continue to accrue daily from January 9, 2017, until paid in full. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

14
15

CIV. NO. 2:16-433 WBS EFB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
DANIEL L. KIDWELL,

16

Defendant.

17
18
19

----oo0oo----

20

The United States brought this action against defendant

21
22

Daniel L. Kidwell, arising out of defendant’s failure to fully

23

pay federal taxes assessed against him.

24

moves for summary judgment against Kidwell pursuant to Federal

25

Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

26

I.

27
28

The United States now

(Pl.’s Mot. (Docket No. 12-1).)

Factual and Procedural History
This case arises out of defendant’s failure to fully

pay his self-reported employment tax liabilities for the tax
1

1

periods ending on September 30, 2004, and December 31, 2004.

2

During the applicable time, defendant owned and operated Kidwell

3

Glass, and he employed several people through this business.

4

Defendant was required to file Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly

5

Federal Tax Return, for the periods at issue.

6

A Form 941 for the period ending September 30, 2004,

7

was filed on April 4, 2005, and a Form 941 for the period ending

8

December 31, 2004, was filed on January 31, 2005.1

9

Decl., Ex. 1 (“Sept. 30 Form 4340”) at 1; Ex. 2 (“Dec. 31 Form

(Stevko

10

4340”) at 1 (Docket No. 12-4).)

11

the Forms 941, the IRS assessed employment tax liabilities

12

against defendant on March 28, 2005, and May 23, 2005.

13

Form 4340 at 1; Dec. 31 Form 4340 at 1.)

14

defendant has an outstanding tax balance of $96,532.44.2

15

Swain Decl., Exs. E-F (Docket No. 12-6).)

16

Based on the amounts reported in

(Sept. 30

As of January 9, 2017,
(See

The United States initiated this action on March 1,

17

2016, seeking to reduce defendant’s remaining federal tax

18

assessment to judgment.

19

defendant alleges that the statute of limitations bars the United

20

States’ recovery.

21

States now moves for summary judgment.

22

II.

(Docket No. 1.)

In his Answer,

(Answer ¶ 17 (Docket No. 5).)

The United

(Pl.’s Mot.)

Legal Standard

23

Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that

24
1

25
26
27
28

Accountant Linda Kendall and Kidwell Glass’s business
secretary Lorraine Silvera prepared all tax forms. (Luoma Decl.,
Ex. A (“Kidwell Dep.”) 30:7-31:22 (Docket No. 13-3).)
2

The total amount includes an assessed tax liability and
accrued, but unassessed, penalties and interest. (See Swain
Decl. ¶ 24 (Docket No. 12-5).)
2

1

there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the

2

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

3

P. 56(a).

4

of the suit, and a genuine issue is one that could permit a

5

reasonable jury to enter a verdict in the non-moving party’s

6

favor.

7

(1986).

8

burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material

9

fact and can satisfy this burden by presenting evidence that

10

negates an essential element of the non-moving party’s case.

11

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).

12

Alternatively, the movant can demonstrate that the non-moving

13

party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element

14

upon which it will bear the burden of proof at trial.

Fed. R. Civ.

A material fact is one that could affect the outcome

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial

Id.

15

Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the

16

burden shifts to the non-moving party to “designate ‘specific

17

facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’”

18

324 (quoting then-Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).

19

must “do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical

20

doubt as to the material facts.”

21

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).

22

existence of a scintilla of evidence . . . will be insufficient;

23

there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find

24

for the [non-moving party].”

Id. at

The non-moving party

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
“The mere

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.

25

In deciding a summary judgment motion, the court must

26

view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving

27

party and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor.

28

255.

Id. at

“Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence,
3

1

and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury

2

functions, not those of a judge . . . ruling on a motion for

3

summary judgment . . . .”

4

III. Discussion

5

A.

6

Id.

Reducing Tax Liabilities to Judgment
The United States first moves for summary judgment on

7

its sole claim to reduce defendant’s tax liabilities to judgment.

8

“In an action to collect tax, the government bears the initial

9

burden of proof.

The government, however, may satisfy this

10

initial burden by introducing into evidence its assessment of

11

taxes due” and providing a “minimal factual foundation” for the

12

assessment.

13

Cir. 1990); see United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 440-41

14

(1976); Genry v. United States, 962 F.2d 555, 557 (6th Cir.

15

1992).

Oliver v. United States, 921 F.2d 916, 919-20 (9th

16

The United States submits IRS Certificates of

17

Assessments and Payments (“Forms 4340”) as proof that the United

18

States assessed taxes against defendant.

19

“probative evidence in and of itself and, ‘in the absence of

20

contrary evidence, is sufficient to establish that notices and

21

assessments were properly made.’”

22

F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Hughes v. United States,

23

953 F.2d 531, 535 (9th Cir. 1992)); see United States v. Wright,

24

Civ. No. 2:94-1183 EJG GGH, 1994 WL 715870, at *7-8 (E.D. Cal.

25

Oct. 25, 1994) (finding Form 4340 satisfied the government’s

26

burden at summary judgment of the defendant’s tax liability

27

amount); see also United States v. Scharringhausen, 226 F.R.D.

28

406, 411 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (“Forms 4340 are admissible as self4

A Form 4340 is

Hansen v. United States, 7

1

authenticating official records.” (citing Hughes, 953 F.2d at

2

540)).

3

Here, the Form 4340 for the tax period ending September

4

30, 2004, indicates an assessed tax liability of $32,239.26.

5

(Sept. 30 Form 4340 at 4.)

6

ending December 31, 2004, indicates an assessed tax liability of

7

$24,115.94.

8

total assessed tax liability of $56,355.20.

9

that he owned a business subject to employment tax, he had

The Form 4340 for the tax period

(Dec. 31 Form 4340 at 4.)

Defendant thus has a
Defendant admits

10

employment tax liability, and he did not pay all of his

11

employment tax liability for these periods.

12

Stevko Decl., Ex. 4 2:15-18.)

13

established its prima facie case through its presentation of

14

Forms 4340 and minimal evidentiary foundation.

15

Comm’r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 1999).

16

(See Answer ¶ 5;

Thus, the United States has

See Hardy v.

Defendant is also liable for interest and penalties

17

accruing on his tax liabilities.

Mandatory interest accrues on

18

federal employment tax liabilities until the taxpayer pays the

19

liability in full.

20

U.S.C. § 1961(c); Purer v. United States, 872 F.2d 277, 277 (9th

21

Cir. 1989) (“[I]nterest on tax deficiencies [is] to be determined

22

by reference to a floating rate and compounded daily.”).

23

Therefore, the government is entitled to judgment for defendant’s

24

assessed liability on the Forms 4340 and any previously

25

unassessed statutory additions that have accrued after the

26

assessments.

27

(4th Cir. 2007) (“Although establishing the amount of tax

28

liability is a matter of evidence, the amount of interest accrued

See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6601(a), 6621, 6622(a); 28

See United States v. Saruvin, 507 F.3d 811, 816

5

1

on such tax liability is a matter of law.”).

2

As of January 9, 2017, defendant has an outstanding

3

balance, including statutory unassessed interest and penalties,

4

of $54,773.81 for the tax period ending September 30, 2004, and

5

an outstanding balance of $41,758.63 for the tax period ending

6

December 31, 2004.

7

6).)

8

Defendant does not dispute the accuracy of this amount.

9

the United States proved the amount of tax assessment defendant

(See Swain Decl., Exs. E-F (Docket No. 12-

This is a total tax liability balance of $96,532.44.
Because

10

owes, the court must grant the government’s request to reduce

11

defendant’s tax liability to judgment unless the statute of

12

limitations bars the suit.

13

B.

Statute of Limitations

14

Plaintiff next moves for summary judgment on

15

defendant’s sole affirmative defense that plaintiff did not file

16

this action within the applicable statute of limitations.

17

Section 6502(a) of the Internal Revenue Code provides

18

that the statute of limitations for collection of a tax is ten

19

years after the assessment of the tax.

20

ten year statute of limitations period is “suspended for the

21

period during which the [IRS] is prohibited . . . from making a

22

levy.”

23

offer-in-compromise is pending and for thirty days after any

24

rejection or appeal of the rejection.

25

offer is pending beginning on the date the [IRS] accepts such

26

offer for processing.”

27

tolls while an offer-in-compromise is pending and for thirty days

28

after any rejection of the offer by the IRS.

Id. § 6331(i)(5).

26 U.S.C. § 6502(a).

The

The IRS cannot levy a tax while an

Id.

Id. § 6331(k)(1).

“[A]n

Thus, the statute of limitations

6

See id. §§

1

6331(i)(5), (k)(1), 6502(a).

2

IRS assessment documents, such as Form 4340, “are

3

normally entitled to a presumption of correctness.”

Palmer v.

4

IRS, 116 F.3d 1309, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997).

5

4340, an offer-in-compromise was pending on December 21, 2006,

6

and was “rejected, returned, [and] terminated” on December 7,

7

2007.

8

offer was pending for a total of 351 days.

9

9.)

According to the Forms

(Sept. 30 Form 4340 at 2; Dec. 31 Form 4340 at 2.)

The

(See Swain Decl. ¶

After the tolling the statute of limitations for 351 days

10

plus 30 days from denial of the offer to compromise, 26 U.S.C. §

11

6331(k)(1), the United States had to file suit within 11 years

12

and 16 days of the tax assessment.

13

The tax for the period ending on September 30, 2004,

14

was assessed on May 23, 2005.

15

tolled statute of limitations for that period expired on June 8,

16

2016.

17

assessed on March 28, 2005.

18

tolled statute of limitations for that period expired on April

19

13, 2016.

20

is within the statute of limitations for both periods at issue.

21

(See Compl.)

22

(Sept. 30 Form 4340 at 1.)

The

The tax for the period ending December 31, 2004, was
(Dec. 30 Form 4340 at 1.)

The

The United States filed suit on March 1, 2016, which

Defendant argues that there is a triable issue of

23

material fact as to whether he submitted an offer-in-compromise.

24

However, all of the deposition testimony that defendant points to

25

states that defendant and his agents could not recall whether

26

defendant submitted an offer-in-compromise.

27

that he did not handle the taxes for the business, he “would only

28

be guessing” whether an offer-in-compromise was filed, and it was
7

Defendant testified

1

“a possibility” that his accountant filed an offer for him.

2

(Kidwell Dep. 64:17-65:21.)

3

stated that she “didn’t even remember [they] did an offer for

4

[defendant].”

5

Defendant’s business secretary, when asked whether she was aware

6

that defendant made an offer-in-compromise, admitted that she was

7

not the person who was corresponding with the IRS and was “not

8

aware of an Offer in Compromise that [Ms. Kendall] would have

9

made.”

Defendant’s accountant, Ms. Kendall,

(See Luoma Decl., Ex. B 52:5-8 (Docket No. 13-3).)

(Id., Ex. C 48:6-49:10.)

10

One’s “lack of memory concerning . . . offers-in-

11

compromise does not create an issue of fact precluding summary

12

judgment.”

13

1080221, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2012) (holding taxpayer could

14

only controvert evidence of an offer-in-compromise in IRS

15

documents if there is “some evidentiary support for that

16

denial”).

17

offer-in-compromise are his admissions that “[a]n offer in

18

compromise was filed with the [IRS] for some periods.”

19

Decl., Ex. 4 2:25-3:2; see also Stevko Decl. 2, Ex. 1 2:5-14

20

(Docket No. 14-2) (defendant’s initial disclosures discussing

21

persons with knowledge of an offer-in-compromise).)

22

uncertain statements by defendant and his agents, without more,

23

are insufficient to overcome the presumptive correctness of the

24

offer-in-compromise dates on the Forms 4340.

25

United States v. Resnick, No. 10 CV 3976, 2012 WL

Defendant’s only certain statements regarding the

(Stevko

The

Defendant further argues that the United States

26

committed spoliation because it destroyed files associated with

27

defendant’s case and cannot produce the original offer-in-

28
8

1

compromise letters.3

2

see Luoma Decl., Ex. F.)

3

indicating that the government must provide the original offer-

4

in-compromise letter to prove the dates an offer-in-compromise

5

was pending or denied.

6

recognized that the offer-in-compromise dates listed on a Form

7

4340 are presumptively correct and are evidence that an offer-in-

8

compromise was actually pending on those dates.

9

States v. Meehan, 530 Fed. App’x 155, 156 (3d Cir. 2013) (holding

10

offer-in-compromise dates on Form 4340 established that an offer-

11

in-compromise was pending on those dates); United States v.

12

Sullivan, Civ. No. 2:12-CV-72, 2013 WL 709222, at *5 n.7 (D. Vt.

13

Feb. 27, 2013) (“Just as [Form 4340] is ascribed presumptive

14

validity, the dates of the . . . offers-in-compromise found in

15

the IRS 4340 forms are also presumed correct.”); cf. United

16

States v. Capriotti, Civ. No. 1:11-847 SAB, 2013 WL 1563214, at

17

*11-12 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2013) (finding the dates listed on

18

Form 4340 were sufficient to establish that the assessment was

19

made within the limitations period).

20

evidence suggesting the Forms 4340 are incorrect.

21

dates on the Forms 4340 are presumed correct and defendant’s

22

spoliation argument fails.

23

(Def.’s Opp’n 5:25-6:12 (Docket No. 13);
Defendant cites to no authority

To the contrary, several courts have

See United

Defendant puts forth no
Thus, the

Defendant includes a related argument--that the offer-

24

in-compromise was actually for a tax liability owed by Ms.

25

Silvera and not for defendant’s tax liability, and thus the

26
27
28

3

Neither party disputes that the IRS destroyed the
administrative files for the periods of September 30, 2004, and
December 31, 2004, according to the IRS’s standard Records
Retention Schedules. (See Luoma Decl., Ex. F.)
9

1

statute of limitations never tolled.

2

inference, it would need to assume that the IRS erroneously

3

entered the offer-in-compromise into the wrong person’s IRS file,

4

listed the wrong dates that the offer was pending and terminated,

5

and erroneously entered the offer for a different type of tax

6

liability.

7

offer-in-compromise on July 17, 2006, and the offer was pending

8

on August 3, 2006.

9

over four months before the offer-in-compromise at issue in

For the court to draw this

For example, the government received Ms. Silvera’s

(See Luoma Decl., Ex. E at 1, 4.)

This was

10

defendant’s case was pending.

11

Form 4340.)

12

assertion that the offer-in-compromise on the Forms 4340 is

13

actually attributable to Ms. Silvera as to overcome the

14

presumptive validity of the dates on the Forms 4340.

15

Sullivan, 2013 WL 709222, at *5 n.7.

16

(See Sept. 30 Form 4340; Dec. 31

The record does not sufficiently support defendant’s

See

Thus, this argument fails.

Defendant lastly argues that the IRS placed his

17

liabilities into “currently not collectible” status, which

18

prevents the statute of limitations from tolling.

19

put forth no evidence indicating if, or when, the IRS placed him

20

into currently not collectible status.

21

collectible status does not prevent a party from also submitting

22

an offer of compromise.

23

full amount of tax liability is one of the IRS’s listed grounds

24

for compromise.

25

Defendant has

Further, currently not

Doubt as to the collectability of the

See 26 C.F.R. § 301.7122-1(b)(2).

Because the Forms 4340 list the dates that there was a

26

pending offer-in-compromise and defendant has not created a

27

triable issue of material fact as to the tolling or expiration of

28

the statute of limitations, the United States filed this action
10

1

before the statute of limitations expired.

2

court must grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to

3

defendant’s statute of limitations affirmative defense.

4
5

Accordingly, the

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff United States’
motion for summary judgment be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

6

Judgment shall be entered against defendant in the

7

amount of $96,532.44 plus any associated penalties, fines, and

8

interest that will continue to accrue daily from January 9, 2017,

9

until paid in full.

10

Dated:

February 22, 2017

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11