Ransier v. United States of America et al

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED: United States' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 43 is GRANTED. (Jury Trial reset for 11/17/2014 09:30 AM in Coeur d Alene - District Courtroom before Judge Edward J. Lodge.). Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

KIMBERLY R. RANSIER,
Case No. 2:12-CV-00538-EJL
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

Pending before the Court in the above-entitled matter is Defendant United States’
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 43). Having fully reviewed the record, the
Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and
record. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court
conclusively finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral
argument, this matter shall be decided on the record before this Court without oral
argument.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Kimberly Ransier brought this action for a refund of $3,600 in taxes
withheld from an income tax refund and applied to the first trust assessment against her
for Trust Fund taxes of Insight Diagnostic Imaging, P.A. (IDI) for the tax period ending

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

December 31, 2001 of $97,649.60, for the tax period ending March 31, 2009 of
$108,878.59 and for the tax period ending June 30, 2009 of $90,979.51. Plaintiff also
seeks a determination that she was not a “responsible” or “willful” person at IDI for
purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 6672. Plaintiff claims she is not personally liable for the Trust
Fund taxes that were collected but not paid by IDI and should be refunded the $3,600 and
not subject to any further personal liability for trust fund taxes owed by IDI.
The United States maintains Ms. Ransier was a “responsible person” under the law
in her position at IDA and she acted willfully. Accordingly, the United States argues Ms.
Ransier is personally liable for the assessments and the application of her refund to the
outstanding assessments was appropriate. The United States seeks partial summary
judgment on the amount of the assessments and a legal determination that under the
undisputed facts of this case, Plaintiff should be deemed a “responsible person” at IDI to
ensure the Trust Fund taxes were paid.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate where a party can show that, as to any claim or
defense, “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). One of the principal purposes of the
summary judgment “is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims . . . .”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). It is “not a disfavored procedural
shortcut,” but is instead the “principal tool[ ] by which factually insufficient claims or
defenses [can] be isolated and prevented from going to trial with the attendant
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

unwarranted consumption of public and private resources.” Id. at 327.
“[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not
defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is
that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 247-48 (1986). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case. See
id. at 248.
The moving party is entitled to summary judgment if that party shows that each
issue of material fact is not or cannot be disputed. To show the material facts are not in
dispute, a party may cite to particular parts of materials in the record, or show that the
materials cited do not establish the presence of a genuine dispute, or that the adverse party
is unable to produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(1)(A)&(B); see T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d
626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322). The Court must consider “the
cited materials,” but it may also consider “other materials in the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(3).
Material used to support or dispute a fact must be “presented in a form that would
be admissible in evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). Affidavits or declarations submitted
in support of or opposition to a motion “must be made on personal knowledge, set out
facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is
competent to testify on the matters stated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4).
The Court does not determine the credibility of affiants or weigh the evidence set
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

forth by the non-moving party. All inferences which can be drawn from the evidence
must be drawn in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. T.W. Elec. Serv., 809
F.2d at 630-31 (internal citation omitted).
Rule 56(e)(3) authorizes the Court to grant summary judgment for the moving
party “if the motion and supporting materials–including the facts considered
undisputed–show that the movant is entitled to it.” The existence of a scintilla of evidence
in support of the non-moving party’s position is insufficient. Rather, “there must be
evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party].” Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252.
ANALYSIS
In the present case, Plaintiff has no dispute with the calculations for the trust fund
tax assessments and concedes that under existing law and the facts of this case she could
be deemed a “responsible person” for IDI. However, Ms. Ransier contests that she acted
“willfully” as specified in 26 U.S.C. § 6672(a). Based on these concessions, the Court
finds the motion for partial summary judgment should be granted. Plaintiff shall be
deemed as a matter of law a “responsible person” under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 for IDI for the
trust fund taxes for the Fourth Quarter of 2008 and the First and Second Quarters of 2009.
Additionally, the amount of the trust fund taxes and assessments as set forth by the United
States are deemed established for the three reporting periods and cannot be contested at

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

trial. The Court will set the matter for a jury trial1 on the remaining issue of whether or
not Plaintiff acted willfully.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 43) is GRANTED.
2. Based on the agreement of counsel, the jury trial in this matter on the limited
issue of whether Plaintiff acted “willfully” shall be reset for Tuesday, November 17,
2014 at 9:30 a.m at the Federal Courthouse in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.
DATED: October 14, 2014

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

1

The Court previously set this matter for a bench trial, however, counsel for Defendant
has advised the Court’s staff attorney the United States has no objection to a jury trial on the
question of whether or not Plaintiff acted “willfully.” Therefore, the matter will proceed as a
jury trial.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5