Todd v. United States of America

Filing 67

ORDER granting 52 Motion for Reconsideration and vacating the portion of the Court's Order determining which party has the burden of proof re 48 Order. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr. on 03/16/2011. (lmm)

Todd v. United States of America

Doc. 67

vig IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGI SAVANNAH DIVISION KATHY M. TODD,

1MAR 16 PM 3:29

SO, 01ST. OF )
CASE NO. CV408-034

Plaintiff, am

) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's order dated March 2, 2011. (Doc. 52.) For the reasons that follow, this motion is GRANTED. That portion of the Court's order determining which party has the burden of proof
is VACATED.

The Court's earlier order was without the benefit of full briefing by the parties. Even with the benefit of advocacy by all counsel, confusion still reigns. The argument of Defendant is persuasive and comports with the vast majority of authority on the subject as cited in this Court's earlier order. Other cases outside this circuit specifically address this issue and are at odds with this circuit's rule. See, e.g., Mason v. Commissioner, 132 T. C. 301, 323 (2009) (refusing to shift the burden in a trust fund penalty case). Only one district court in the Eleventh Circuit has refused to apply a burden-shifting scheme, but that case has no citing

Dockets.Justia.com

references. United States v. Metzger, 2002 WL 1083843 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2002) (unpublished). However, this quarrel is not for this Court to resolve. These cases do not reflect the state of the law in the Eleventh Circuit. The "shifting burden of proof concept" Plaintiff has advocated is included in Instruction No. 10.6 of the Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions for Civil Cases. This framework stems from Mazo v. United States, 591 F.2d 1151, 1154 (5th Cir. 1979) (" [Ojnce an assessment of penalty taxes is made and it is established that the taxpayer is a responsible person, the burden of proving lack of willfulness is on the taxpayer.") ; George v. United States, 819 F.2d 1008, 1011 (11th Cir. 1987) ("Once it is established that a taxpayer is a responsible person, the burden of proving lack of willfulness is on the taxpayer.") ; Thibodeau v. United States, 828

F.2d 1499, 1505 (11th Cir. 1987) (quoting same language) . No party
has cited, and this Court has been unable to locate, any revision to the Pattern Jury Charges. Further, the Court's independent research has located a recent decision by a district court in this circuit confirming the continued validity of this concept as the applicable law. United States v. Ste eley, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47436, at *8_*9 (N.D. Fla. May 13, 2010). Accordingly, it will be Defendant' s burden at trial to show that Plaintiff was a responsible person. Plaintiff will then bear the burden to demonstrate lack of willfulness. Because the Plaintiff

2

is tasked with the ultimate burden of proof in this case, she will have the opportunity to open and close the argument before the jury. See Martin v. Chesebrough- Pond's, Inc., 615 F. 2d 498, 501 (5th Cir. 1980) ("Normally, the party with the burden of proof has the right to open and close the argument to the jury.") ; see also Commercial Iron & Metal Co. v. Bache, Halsey, Stewart, Inc., 581 F.2d 246 (10th Cir. 1978) ("The determination of the right to open and close a case rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial court . . . Grayling Indus., Inc. v. GPAC, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20702, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 11, 1992) (unpublished) SO ORDERED this 146 day of March 2011.

WILLIAM T. MOORE, J UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3