Haag v. United States of America et al

Filing 25

Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered: "...Because Plaintiffs complaint erroneously relies on the application of Notice 2011-70 as the sole basis for her case, thecomplaint does not present enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face and must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8 ) is ALLOWED. (Anderson, Jennifer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

KATHLEEN HAAG,
Plaintiff
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 11-CV-11591-PBS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
August 13, 2012
Saris, U.S.D.J.
This case relates to the government’s efforts to collect the
unpaid joint and several federal income tax liabilities of
plaintiff Kathleen Haag and her husband, Robert Haag, for taxable
years 1985-1991 and 1993.

See Haag v. Shulman, 683 F.3d 26, 27

(1st Cir. 2012) (describing the lengthy litigation history).
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to Rule 60(d)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a court to
“entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a
judgment . . . .”

She seeks relief from the order in United

States v. Haag, 02-CV-12490-REK, 2004 WL 2650274 (D. Mass. Sept.
30, 2004), which rejected her claim for “innocent spouse” relief
under I.R.C. § 6015 and granted the government’s motion for

1

partial summary judgment.

The government has moved to dismiss

the present action arguing, inter alia, that under Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Plaintiff fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The government contends that Plaintiff is not entitled to
innocent spouse relief under Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”)
Notice 2011–70, 2011–32 I.R.B. 135, 2011 WL 3035113 (released
July 26, 2011) (“Notice 2011–70”).

In a related appellate

decision, the First Circuit recently expressed its agreement with
the government on this point:
In any event, we are constrained to agree with the
government’s reasoning that the terms of Notice 2011–70
would be inapplicable to Haag even if her claim were
not precluded by res judicata. With regards to the
specific matter of innocent spouse claims that were
adjudicated and rendered final prior to its date of
issue, Notice 2011–70 explains that the IRS will not
take further collection activity against a taxpayer if
the agency had “stipulated in the court proceeding that
the individual's request for equitable relief would
have been granted had the request been timely.” In
Haag's case, the IRS never stipulated that § 6015(f)'s
two-year deadline constituted the sole obstacle to her
claim. On the contrary, we note that in the Haag I
litigation, the government argued that Haag
administratively waived her claim by not articulating
her request for relief before the Secretary prior to
raising it at the district court.
Haag v. Shulman, 683 F.3d 26, 32 n.2 (1st Cir. 2012).

This court

administratively stayed this action pending this ruling.

Notice

2011-70 does not entitle Plaintiff to innocent spouse relief.
Plaintiff argues the First Circuit erroneously limited its
discussion of Notice 2011-70 to “the specific matter of innocent
2

spouse claims that were adjudicated and rendered final prior to
its date of issue.”

Id.

Notice 2011-70 treats innocent spouse

claims that were adjudicated and rendered final prior to its date
of issue differently from innocent spouse claims that were still
in litigation on its date of issue.

Plaintiff argues her request

for innocent spouse relief was still in litigation as a result of
the underlying Rule 60 action, not adjudicated and rendered
final, when the IRS issued Notice 2011-70 on July 25, 2011.
Doc. No. 24 at 3.

See

However, Plaintiff’s claim for innocent spouse

relief was rejected in United States v. Haag, 02-CV-12490-REK,
2004 WL 2650274 (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2004), and judgment was
entered against Plaintiff and her husband on January 3, 2006.
See Civil Action No. 02-12490, Doc. No. 48.

Thus, her claim was

adjudicated and rendered final prior to the July 25, 2011,
issuance of Notice 2011-70.
Because Plaintiff’s complaint erroneously relies on the
application of Notice 2011-70 as the sole basis for her case, the
complaint does not present “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face” and must be dismissed
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8) is ALLOWED.
/s/ PATTI B. SARIS
PATTI B. SARIS
United States District Judge

3