UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHAFFEE et al
Filing
46
ORDER Overruling 37 Objections, Adopting 35 Report and Recommendation, Denying Defendant's 26 Motion to Dismiss, Granting Plaintiff's 24 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and Denying 43 Territorial Jurisdiction Challenge. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v
Case No. 18-11559
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris
RANDY J. CHAFFEE,
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
OTSEGO COUNTY
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS,
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND
DENYING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION CHALLENGE
On May 17, 2018, Plaintiff the United States of America, filed a complaint against
Defendant Randy J. Chaffee. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff seeks to obtain judgment on Chaffee’s unpaid
taxes and unpaid tax penalties and to enforce tax liens on Chaffee’s real property.1
The complaint was referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia Morris for resolution of pretrial
matters. ECF No. 11. On May 30, 2019, Chaffee filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 26. The next
day, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment against Chaffee. ECF No. 24. Judge
Morris issued a report, recommending that Chaffee’s motion to dismiss be denied and Plaintiff’s
motion for partial summary judgment be granted. ECF No. 35. Chaffee subsequently filed
objections to Judge Morris’s report and recommendation. ECF No. 37.
1
Plaintiff named the State of Michigan and Otsego County as Defendants because they have “or may claim an
interest in the [p]roperty.” ECF No. 1 at PageID.2-3.
Defendant’s objections will be overruled and the Report and Recommendation adopted.
I.
A.
Plaintiff alleges that from 2003 to 2008, Defendant either failed to file tax returns or filed
false returns claiming no tax liability. A delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury made the
following tax liability assessments against Defendant.
Tax Period
Assessment Date
Balance Due as of 5/2/2018
12/31/2003
11/1/2010
$7,440.37
12/31/2004
11/17/2008, 9/27/2010, 4/30/2012, 5/6/2013
$5,748.53
12/31/2005
3/8/2010, 4/30/2012
$4,043.03
12/31/2006
9/29/2008, 9/20/2010
$2,169.94
12/31/2007
8/1/2011, 4/30/2012, 5/6/2013
$1,485.41
12/31/2008
12/12/2011, 5/6/2013
$3,372.69
Total as of 5/2/2018 $24,259.97
ECF No. 1 at PageID.4.
Plaintiff further claims that it provided Defendant notice of his outstanding tax liability.
However, Defendant did not furnish payment, despite the fact that Plaintiff also sent him a
collection summons. It also alleges that Defendant filed frivolous tax filings in 1998 and from
2000 through 2008, making him liable for 19 tax penalties. Id. at PageID.5.
Plaintiff’s complaint seeks three counts of recovery. First, $24,259.97 in unpaid income
tax liabilities for tax years 2003 through 2008. Second, $223,640.41 in unpaid tax penalties for the
tax years 1998 and 2000 through 2008. Third, enforcement of a federal tax lien on Defendant’s
real property located at 1794 McGregor Road, Vanderbilt, Michigan 49795. Plaintiff’s motion for
-2-
partial summary judgment seeks resolution of all counts. If the motion is granted, Plaintiff
represents that it “will submit a proposed order of sale or one appointing a real estate agent as a
receiver to list and sell the Property.” ECF No. 24 at PageID.155.
B.
In her report, Magistrate Judge Morris first addressed Defendant’s motion to dismiss
followed by Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.
1.
The crux of Defendant’s motion to dismiss is as follows:
I, Randy J. Chaffee, now, challenge the Plaintiff to prove/evidence, in writing, on/in
the official record, fact evidence of personal jurisdiction over me, as to what I said,
did (contact), or signed (contract) to become a ‘person’ subject to this US court, as
a man that has not elected to become a U.S. Citizen, or to contract with the same.
Therefore, upon the Plaintiff’s failure to evidence personal jurisdiction, as
challenged. [sic] I motion the court to dismiss for its lack of evidenced personal
jurisdiction which creates a general jurisdiction want of jurisdiction, essentially
lacking a declaration of law from the Plaintiff for the court to rely upon for ‘subject
matter jurisdiction’. This case must be dismissed, as a matter of law, forthwith.
ECF No. 26 at PageID.313 (underlining present in original).
Magistrate Judge Morris rejected Defendant’s argument. She cited to various courts that
have rejected similar arguments by parties claiming to have “not elected to become U.S. citizens.”
Id. She further cited to law supporting the principle that “[s]erving a summons or filing a waiver
of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant…who is subject to the jurisdiction of
a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(k)(1)(A).
Magistrate Judge Morris recommended denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
2.
-3-
She then addressed Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, which consists of
three parts: Defendant’s unpaid tax liability, Defendant’s tax penalties, and enforcement of a
federal tax lien on Defendant’s real property.
i.
Magistrate Judge Morris quoted the Supreme Court when it held, “It is well established in
the tax law that an assessment is entitled to a legal presumption of correctness–a presumption that
can help the Government prove its case against a taxpayer in court.” U.S. v. Fior D’Italia, Inc.,
536 U.S. 238, 242 (2002). She recommended:
In this case, Plaintiff has presented Forms 4340…to establish Defendant’s tax
assessments. These Forms demonstrate tax liabilities for each year from 2003
through 2008. A declaration from an IRS revenue officer brings these sums up to
date, establishing the current balances—mentioned above—as of May 30, 2019.
(ECF No. 24, PageID.190-192.) All of these materials constitute presumptive proof
of Defendant’s liability.
Plaintiff is therefore entitled to judgment unless Defendant has met his burden. I
suggest he has not. Defendant does not argue that the sums are incorrect or present
any evidence to that effect. (ECF No.30, PageID.327-334.) Instead, the gist of
Defendant’s response appears to be that he sent Plaintiff a letter on September 6,
2017, exercising his statutory right to request a certified assessment; he has received
no response, he claims. (ECF No.30, PageID.327.) The letter, which he has attached
to his brief, asserted he did not understand the IRS’s tax computations and “would
appreciate it if the person reading this letter would have the designated IRS
Assessment Officer send me a certified assessment and a copy of the supporting
record used to make the assessments.” (ECF No.30, PageID.337.) The letter goes
on to state that once he received a response, he would have the record verified and
make arrangements to pay the assessments. (Id.)
ECF No. 35 at PageID.403. Magistrate Judge Morris continued by finding that Defendant had in
fact received the Forms 4340 providing an assessment and that he had not identified any
deficiencies in the forms. Citing case law, she noted that “[e]ven if errors existed, Defendant would
not be entitled to the relief he seems to request, i.e. mooting the case or somehow invalidating the
assessments.” ECF No. 35 at PageID.405.
-4-
ii.
Magistrate Judge Morris next recommended that judgment be entered for Plaintiff on
Defendant’s tax penalties because Plaintiff filed frivolous tax returns. 26 U.S.C. § 6702(a)
addresses tax penalties and provides:
A person shall pay a penalty of $5,000 if-(1) such person files what purports to be a return of a tax imposed by this
title but which-(A) does not contain information on which the substantial
correctness of the self-assessment may be judged, or
(B) contains information that on its face indicates that the selfassessment is substantially incorrect, and
(2) the conduct referred to in paragraph (1)—
(A) is based on a position which the Secretary has identified as
frivolous under subsection (c), or
(B) reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal
tax laws.
26 U.S.C. § 6702.
Plaintiff argued that Defendant had filed multiple frivolous tax returns and was liable for
19 tax penalties during the following years. Magistrate Judge Morris reviewed Plaintiff’s analysis
for each year and determined that Defendant was liable for all 19 tax penalties. She agreed with
Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant had filed multiple frivolous tax returns during the following
years.
Year
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number of tax penalties
1
1
1
1
1
1
-5-
2005
2006
2007
2
3
8
19
TOTAL
ECF No. 35 at PageID.411-424.
iii.
Magistrate Judge Morris found that Plaintiff was entitled to enforce a federal tax lien in
order to recoup the amounts Defendant owed on his unpaid taxes and tax penalties. ECF No. 35 at
PageID.424. The real property at issue is 1794 MacGregor Rd., Vanderbilt, Michigan 49795. Tax
liens are provided for in 26 U.S.C. § 6321:
If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand,
the amount (including any interest, additional amount, addition to tax, or assessable
penalty, together with any costs that may accrue in addition thereto) shall be a lien
in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real
or personal, belonging to such person.
26 U.S.C. § 6321.
Magistrate Judge Morris recommended that Plaintiff was entitled to enforce the tax liens
against Defendant’s property.
II.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a party may object to and seek review of a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Objections must be
stated with specificity. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985) (citation omitted). If objections
are made, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review requires
at least a review of the evidence before the magistrate judge; the Court may not act solely on the
basis of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208,
1215 (6th Cir. 1981). After reviewing the evidence, the Court is free to accept, reject, or modify
-6-
the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge. See Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 2d
806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute.
Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). “The parties have the duty to pinpoint those
portions of the magistrate’s report that the district court must specially consider.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). A general objection, or one that merely restates the
arguments previously presented, does not sufficiently identify alleged errors on the part of the
magistrate judge. See VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F. Supp. 2d 934, 937 (E.D. Mich. 2004). An
“objection” that does nothing more than disagree with a magistrate judge’s determination, “without
explaining the source of the error,” is not considered a valid objection. Howard v. Sec’y of Health
and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Without specific objections, “[t]he functions
of the district court are effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and the district court perform
identical tasks. This duplication of time and effort wastes judicial resources rather than saving
them, and runs contrary to the purposes of the Magistrate’s Act.” Id.
III.
Defendant filed twelve objections to Magistrate Judge Morris’s report. ECF No. 37. Many
of the objections relate to the same issues and will be addressed together.
Objections 1, 5, 6, and 102 relate to Defendant’s earlier contention in his motion to dismiss
that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction. He presents similar if not identical arguments to those
presented in his earlier motion and does not interact with Magistrate Judge Morris’s
recommendation. Specifically, he does not refute the fact that he was served process in Vanderbilt
Michigan. As explained above Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A) provides “[s]erving a
2
Defendant includes on objection entitled “Objection No. 10 - Conclusion” and “Objection No. 10 - Review.” ECF
No. 37 at PageID.436. The objection addressed here is “Objection No. 10 - Review.”
-7-
summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant who is
subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is
located.” Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 4(k)(1)(A). Accordingly, Defendant’s Objections 1, 5, 6, and 10 will be
overruled.
Defendant also filed a “Territorial Jurisdiction Challenge with Motion to Dismiss” three
months after Magistrate Judge Morris issued her Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 43. The
motion raises the same arguments Defendant previously raised in his Motion to Dismiss that were
rejected by Magistrate Judge Morris. Accordingly, the motion will be denied.
Defendant’s Objections 2, 3, and 7 relate to Defendant’s earlier contention that Plaintiff
did not furnish tax assessments. He argues that the information in the Forms 4340 is false and is a
product of “garbage in garbage out.” ECF No. 37 at PageID.434. He further contends that
“Plaintiff’s submitted FORM 4340 is un-sworn, un-verified, un-reliable, un-true, and unacceptable.” Id. at PageID.435 (sic throughout). However, he provides no evidence to support
these contentions. See U.S. v. Rohner, 634 F. App’x. 495, 499 (6th Cir. 2015) (“‘Vague and general
denials’ of an assessment’s accuracy do not…establish a reasonable denial sufficient to shift the
burden to the Government.”). Accordingly, Defendant’s Objections 2, 3, and 7 will be overruled.
Defendant’s eighth objection is entitled “Objection No. 8 - 1998, 2000-2004, 2005, 2006,
2007, 2008 Tax Submissions.”3 It provides:
All documents sent to Plaintiff, IRS, were done under threat of arrest, death, and
theft of all Affiant’s property, by the exact way that the King of England was doing
in 1776 upon the American lands – “HE HAS ERECTED A MULTITUDE OF
NEW OFFICES, AND SENT HITHER SWARMS OF OFFICERS TO HARASS
OUR PEOPLE, AND EAT OUT THEIR SUBSTANCE”. [sic]
3
Plaintiff labelled two of his objections as “Objection No. 8.” The first is entitled “Objection No. 8 - Taxes
Penalties.” The second is entitled “Objection No. 8 - 1998, 2000-2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 Tax Submissions.”
-8-
Id. at PageID.435 (emphasis in original). Defendant has not presented any evidence to support his
contention that the dozen or more Form 1040s he sent to the IRS were done so under duress. His
objection will be overruled.
In Objections 4, 84, and 9, Defendant contends that there is no evidence that he “is a person
qualified, or eligible, to ever file any tax form, or pay any tax, to the IRS, or UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA.” ECF No. 37 at PageID.432. Defendant has provided no legal authority nor
evidence to support his argument that he is exempt from federal tax laws. His objections will be
overruled.
Objection 105 accuses Magistrate Judge Morris of conspiring with Plaintiff against
Defendant. Defendant provides no evidence to support this baseless accusation. The objection will
be dismissed.
IV.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s objections to Magistrate Judge Morris’s
Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 37, are OVERRULED.
It is further ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Morris’s Report and Recommendation, ECF
No. 35, is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No.
24, is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 26, is DENIED.
4
5
The objection referenced here is entitled “Objection No. 8 - Tax Penalties.”
The objection referenced here is entitled “Objection No. 10 - Conclusion.”
-9-
It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s “Territorial Jurisdiction Challenge with Motion
to Dismiss,” ECF No. 43, is DENIED.
Dated: March 20, 2020
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney of record herein by electronic means and to RANDY
J. CHAFFEE, 1794 McGregor Road, Vanderbilt, MI 49795 by first
class U.S. mail on March 20, 2020.
s/Kelly Winslow
KELLY WINSLOW, Case Manager
- 10 -
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?