United States of America v. Belzner

Filing 11

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 7 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Patrick J. Belzner filed by United States of America. Objections to R&R due by 4/21/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K. Gauvey on 4/3/14. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * Plaintiff * v. * PATRICK J. BELZNER, * WDQ-13-2414 * Defendant. * CIVIL NO. * * * * * * * * * * upon motion * REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter comes before the court by the United States of America (“United States” or “Government”) for entry of default judgment against Patrick J. Belzner (“Defendant”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), for failure to appear or otherwise defend in this matter. (ECF No. 7). Defendant has not filed a response and the time for doing so has passed. Local necessary. 2011). Rule 105.2a (D. Md. 2011). No hearing is Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. The Honorable William D. Quarles, Jr. referred the matter to the undersigned magistrate judge to review the default judgment and make recommendations concerning damages. (ECF NO. 10). For the reasons set forth herein, I recommend that the United States’ motion (ECF No. 7) be GRANTED and that damages be AWARDED as set forth herein. 1 I. Background On August 19, 2013, the Government filed a complaint alleging that Defendant is liable for additional federal income taxes and statutory additions to tax for the 1995 and 1996 tax years. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 7). The Government alleges that Defendant is liable to the United States for $2,017,626.40, as of May 28, 2013, in federal income taxes, penalties, and accrued interest, plus interest and costs that have accrued since that date and continue to accrue according to law until fully paid. 15). The present motion seeks to reduce to (Id. at ¶ judgment the aforementioned claims for damages. (ECF No. 7). II. Standard for Default under Rule 55(b)(2) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) authorizes courts to enter a default judgment against a properly served defendant who fails to file a timely responsive pleading. In deciding whether to grant a motion for default judgment, the Court must first consider the following three factors: (1) whether the plaintiff will be prejudiced if default is not granted, (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense, and (3) whether the defendant’s delay was the result of culpable 2 misconduct. Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Sambrick, 834 F.2d 71, 73 (3rd Cir. 1987), see also Smith v. Bounds, 813 F.2d 1299 (4th Cir. 1987) (relying on these factors in determining whether a default judgment merited reconsideration). The Court must also determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a legitimate cause of plaintiff’s motion entry of accepts true as for the well-pleaded complaint as to liability. action. default Court to determine reviewing judgment, factual the allegations a Court in the Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 253 F.3d 778, 780-81 (4th Cir. 2001). the In whether It, however, remains for these unchallenged allegations constitute a legitimate cause of action. also 10A WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND factual Id., see PROCEDURE § 2688 (3rd ed. Supp. 2010) (“[L]iability is not deemed established simply because of the default . . . and the Court, in its discretion, may require some proof of the facts that must be established in order to determine liability.”). If the Court determines that liability is established, it must then determine the appropriate amount of damages. 253 F.3d at 780-81. liability, the Court Ryan, Unlike allegations of fact establishing does not accept factual allegations regarding damages as true, but rather must make an independent determination regarding such allegations. See Credit Lyonnais Secs. (USA), Inc. v. Alcantara, 183 F.3d 151, 154 (2nd Cir. 3 1999). In hearing. so doing, the Court may Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). conduct an evidentiary The Court may also make a determination of damages without a hearing as long as there is an adequate evidentiary basis in the record for the award. See, e.g., Stephenson v. El-Batrawi, 524 F.3d 907, 917 n.11 (8th Cir. 2008) (“Foregoing an evidentiary hearing may constitute an abuse of discretion when the existing record is insufficient to make the necessary findings in support of a default judgment.”); Adkins v. Teseo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 15, 17 (D.D.C. 2001) (finding that a court need not make determination of damages following entry of detailed default affidavits through or hearing, documentary but rather evidence may to rely determine on the appropriate sum). III. Preliminary Factors The Clerk of court having filed entry of default on November 15, 2013 (ECF No. 5), the undersigned concludes that the procedural requirements for entry of default judgment have been met. Moreover, because Defendant has failed to file any responsive pleadings or otherwise show cause as to why default should not be granted, the Court is “not in a position to judge whether any Sambrick, 834 delay F.2d was at the 73. result of Further, culpable Defendant’s misconduct.” failure to appear deprived the Government of any other means of vindicating 4 their claim and the Government would be prejudiced if default is not granted. IV. Discussion A. Default Judgment The Government’s complaint alleges that on August 25, 2003, for the 1995 tax year, the IRS assessed federal income tax —— $11,483.00, penalties —— $8,612.25, and interest —— $15,410.14, against Defendant; and on October 15, 2007, also assessed a late payment penalty —— $2,870.74. (Id. at ¶ 8). Similarly, the complaint alleges that on August 25, 2003, for the 1996 tax year, the IRS assessed federal income tax —— $393,832.00, penalties —— $295,374.00, and interest —— $426,223.86, against Defendant; and on October 15, 2007, also assessed a late payment penalty —— $98,458.00. complaint alleges (Id. at ¶ 9). that, as of May As such, the Government’s 28, 2013, Defendant owes $61,523.45 (1995 tax assessment) plus $1,956,103.00 (1996 tax assessment), making Defendant liable to the United States for $2,017,626.40 plus accrued statutory additions to tax, interest, and costs that have accrued since that date and will continue to accrue according to law until fully paid. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 15). In support of its motion for entry of default judgment, the Government has attached two “Certificate[s] of Official Record,” “Form 2866,” to establish the taxes, penalties, and interest 5 assessed against Defendant. These Form 2866 Official Records confirm the August 25, 2003 and October 15, 2007 assessments as alleged in 8-12). the Also Government’s attached complaint. to the (ECF Government’s No. 7-1, motion is 3-7, the declaration of Willette F. Strong, Revenue Officer, Baltimore, Maryland, Office of the IRS. (ECF No. 7-1, 1). Ms. Strong’s declaration states that she has custody of the “IRS Account Transcripts” pertaining to Defendant, which demonstrate that, as of December 2, 2013, Defendant is indebted to the United States for unpaid income tax, penalties, and interest as follows: 1995 tax year —— $62,414.74; 1996 (collectively $2,046,855.61). Transcripts” referenced in tax year (Id. at 2). Ms. Strong’s —— $1,984,440.87 The “IRS Account declaration are also attached to the Government’s motion and confirm the amounts due as declared by Ms. Strong. (Id. at 13, 16). Where an assessment of any tax is imposed pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6502(a)(1) provides for a ten-year statute of limitations period to collect such tax by levy or proceeding in court. Here, the United States filed its complaint on August 19, 2013, within the ten-year limitations period that began with the IRS’s August 25, 2003, 1995 and 1996 tax year assessments. motion, as discussed Further, the Government has supported its supra, with the Strong declaration, Certificates of Official Record (Form 2866), and IRS Account 6 Transcripts. Accordingly, the Government has supported its claim for unpaid federal income taxes, penalties, and statutory interest with a declaration and certified records, “thus shifting the burden to Defendant to produce evidence refuting the Government’s position.” U.S. v. Kitila, No. DKC-09-0455, 2010 WL 917873, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 8, 2010) (citing U.S. v. Pomponio, 635 F.2d 293, 296 (4th Cir. 1980)). Defendant has produced no evidence, thus, liability is established for unpaid taxes, related penalties, and interest. As such, the Court GRANTS the Government’s motion for Default Judgment. B. Damages Here, the Government seeks to reduce to judgment the Defendant’s liability for federal income taxes, penalties, and accrued interest, plus interest and costs that have accrued since the Government filed its complaint and continue to accrue according to law until fully paid. As such, the Government’s complaint, motion for default, and supporting documents contain evolving figures as to alleged damages. The Government’s complaint alleges that, as of May 28, 2013, Defendant is liable for $2,017,626.40. for default (ECF No. 1, ¶ 15). judgment, the Strong The Government’s motion Declaration, and the IRS Account Transcripts each proffer that, as of December 2, 2013, Defendant is liable for $2,046,855.61. (ECF No. 8, 2; ECF No. 7-1, motion 2, 13-16). The Government’s 7 and supporting documents, however, do not direct the Court to any precedent or statutory provisions providing for post-assessment costs and interest, including, for example, what post-judgment interest rate this Court should apply if default judgment is awarded. Instead, the Government merely asserts post-assessment costs and interest accrue as a matter of law and cite the Strong Declaration and IRS Account Transcripts to establish the accrued interest as calculated by the IRS through December 2, 2013. The Government Court, is through its “statutorily own research, entitled to finds recover that interest the on unpaid taxes accruing to the date of payment, regardless of whether the interest is reflected in an assessment.” Sarubin, 507 F.3d 811, 812-13 (4th Cir. 2007). establishing evidence, the yet, amount the of amount tax of liability is a matter of law. liability interest U.S. v. This is because is accrued a on matter of such tax Id. at 816 (citations omitted). As such, interest is statutorily mandated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 6601(a), which states: “if any amount of tax imposed by this title . . . is not paid on or before the last date prescribed for payment, interest on such amount at the underpayment rate established under section 6621 shall be paid for the period from such last date to the date paid.” Moreover, interest accrues according to the same rate. post-judgment See 28 U.S.C. § 1961(c) (providing that post-judgment interest shall be allowed 8 with respect to any internal revenue tax case “at the underpayment rate or overpayment rate (whichever is appropriate) established under section 6621 of the Internal Revenue Code”). Here, the Strong Declaration and the IRS Account Transcripts account for the 1995 and 1996 tax year assessments combined with statutorily accrued interest up until December 2, 2013, in the amount of $2,046,855.61. V. (ECF No. 8, 2; ECF No. 7-1, 2, 13-16). Conclusion Having judgment, considered as well as the Government’s the evidence motion presented for and default relevant statutory authority, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 1. The United States’ motion for default judgment be GRANTED; 2. Judgment be entered against Patrick J. Belzner for unpaid income taxes, penalties and interest relevant to the 1995 and 1996 tax years in the amount of $2,046,855.61, as of December 2, 2013, plus penalties, interest, and statutory additions accruing after that date according to 26 U.S.C. § 6601(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1961(c). Date: __4/3/14 _ _______________/s/______________ Susan K. Gauvey United States Magistrate Judge 9

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?