United States of America v. Brightman
Filing
17
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered granting 14 Motion for Summary Judgment (Zierk, Marsha)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-10260-RGS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JANE M. BRIGHTMAN
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
August 4, 2015
STEARNS, D.J.
The United States of America brings this lawsuit to collect unpaid
federal income taxes owed by Jane M. Brightman for the years 2001, 2003,
2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, in the amount of $140,367.49, plus interest.
The United States now moves for summary judgment.
Brightman,
represented by counsel, has filed no opposition.
BACKGROUND
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assessed Brightman’s unpaid tax
balance, including all statutory additions and credits, as $90.00 for 2001;
$50,886.84 for 2003; $20,088.17 for 2004; $40,094.30 for 2005;
$23,757.95 for 2006; and $5,540.23 for 2007.
1
The IRS has sent the
appropriate assessments and requests for payment to Brightman, but she has
failed (or refused) to pay.
DISCUSSION
Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that 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). “Even in cases where
elusive concepts such as motive or intent are at issue, summary judgment
may be appropriate if the nonmoving party rests merely upon conclusory
allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation.” MedinaMunoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990). The nonmoving party, however, is given the benefit of all favorable inferences, Oliver
v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988), and “when the facts
support plausible but conflicting inferences on a pivotal issue in the case, the
judge may not choose between those inferences at the summary judgment
stage.” Coyne v. Taber Partners I, 53 F.3d 454, 460 (1st Cir. 1995).
In tax litigation, “the taxpayer bears the burden to refute by a
preponderance of the evidence the [IRS’s] determination of deficiency,
which is presumed to be correct.” Estate of Abraham v. Comm’r, 408 F.3d
26, 35 (1st Cir. 2005). The United States has provided a Certificate of
Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified Matters for each year, which
2
are “presumed correct” as to the date and amount of assessment. United
States v. Hughes, 44 F. Supp. 3d 169, 171 (D. Mass. 2014). Brightman, on
the other hand, has failed to satisfy her burden of presenting evidence that
contradicts the certificates. See Mendes v. Medtronic, Inc., 18 F.3d 13, 15
(1st Cir. 1994) (“The nonmoving party bears the burden of placing at least
one material fact into dispute after the moving party shows the absence of
material fact.”). Brightman has also failed to respond to the United States’
motion for summary judgment. While Brightman’s silence is not “fatal,” she
has ultimately failed to proffer any countervailing facts sufficient to raise a
genuine issue of material fact. See United States v. Veideman, 2008 WL
2609390, at *3 (D. Mass. June 9, 2008).
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, summary judgment is granted to the United
States in the amount of $140,367.49, plus interest and other statutory
additions accruing from and after November 24, 2014, at the rate specified
by 26 U.S.C. §§ 6621 and 6622. The government will submit a proposed form
of judgment within ten days. The Clerk may now close this case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?