United States of America v. Woodruff, et al

Filing 17

///ORDER granting 16 Motion for Summary Judgment. Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case. So Ordered by District Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America
v.

Civil No. 13-cv-006-LM
Opinion No. 2014 DNH 039

Robert P. Woodruff (individually)
and d/b/a Arrow Painting, and
Patricia Woodruff

O R D E R
The United States of America (“the United States” or “the
government”) has sued to reduce to judgment unpaid federal tax
assessments against Robert Woodruff (Count I), and to enforce
tax liens against all of Woodruff’s property, including real
property located at 65 Valley Street, Keene, New Hampshire
(Count II).

Before the court is the government’s motion for

summary judgment.

Woodruff has not objected.

For the reasons

that follow, I grant the government’s motion.

The Legal Standard
“Summary judgment is warranted where ‘there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.’”

McGair v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co.

of Fla., 693 F.3d 94, 99 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56(a); citing Rosciti v. Ins. Co. of Penn., 659 F.3d 92, 96
(1st Cir. 2011)).

“In determining whether a genuine issue of

material fact exists, [the court] construe[s] the evidence in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party and make[s] all
reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.”

Markel Am. Ins.

Co. v. Díaz-Santiago, 674 F.3d 21, 30 (1st Cir. 2011) (citing
Flowers v. Fiore, 359 F.3d 24, 29 (1st Cir. 2004)).

Discussion
Woodruff did not respond to a set of requests for
admissions propounded by the government, nor did he object to
the government’s motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, the

facts upon which the court relies in the following discussion
are either admitted, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3), or deemed
admitted, see LR 56.1(b).
With regard to the claim stated in Count I, Woodruff has
admitted that: (1) he failed to fully pay his federal income-tax
liabilities for the years ending December 31, 1999, 2000, 2001,
2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010; (2) he failed to
fully pay his federal employment-tax liabilities for the
quarters ending December 31, 2002, June 30, 2008, December 31,
2008, June 30, 2009, September 30, 2009, and December 31, 2009;
(3) assessments were made against Woodruff by a delegate of the

2

Secretary of the Treasury for unpaid federal income taxes,
unpaid federal employment taxes, penalties, and interest; (4) as
of December 15, 2013, the balance due on the assessments related
to federal income taxes was $132,136.11; and (5) as of that same
date, the balance due on the assessments related to federal
employment taxes was $14,892.64.
With regard to the government’s request, in Count II, for
enforcement of tax liens on the real property located at 65
Valley Street, Woodruff has admitted that: (1) he acquired the
property in August of 1990; and (2) in February of 2012, he
conveyed it, by quitclaim deed, to himself and Patricia
Woodruff, as joint tenants with rights of survivorship.

In

accordance with 26 U.S.C § 6323(f), delegates of the Secretary
of the Treasury filed Notices of Federal Tax Liens against 65
Valley Street on nine occasions between November of 2005 and
January of 2012.

Several of those Notices were refiled, none

later than January of 2012.
Based upon the foregoing, the United States seeks the
following relief: (1) “a judgment against Woodruff in the amount
of [$147,028.75], plus interest and other statutory additions
from January 1, 2013,” Compl. (doc. no. 1) 9; (2) a judgment
that its tax liens against 65 Valley Street are valid; (3) an

3

order stating that it may enforce those liens through a judicial
sale; and (4) its costs of litigation.
A. Count I
Count I is the government’s request for a money judgment
against Woodruff.

“The district courts of the United States at

the instance of the United States shall have such jurisdiction
. . . to render such judgments and decrees as may be necessary
or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue
laws.”

26 U.S.C. § 7402(a).

As Judge Conner has explained:

If a taxpayer is liable to the IRS, the
Government may proceed in district court to obtain a
judgment for the amount assessed against the taxpayer.
26 U.S.C. § 7402(a). “It is well established that the
IRS’s tax calculations (including calculations of
interest and penalties) are presumptively valid and
create a prima facie case of liability, such that the
Government is ‘entitled to have the assessment reduced
to judgment unless the taxpayer overcomes the
presumption by the IRS that the assessment is
correct.’” United States v. Chrein, 368 F. Supp. 2d
278, 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing Chariot Plastics,
Inc. v. United States, 28 F. Supp. 2d 874, 881
(S.D.N.Y. 1998)). The burden is on the defendant to
prove the invalidity of the tax assessment.
Pizzarello v. United States, 408 F.2d 579, 583 (2d
Cir. 1969); Chrein, 368 F. Supp. 2d at 282.
United States v. Sweeny, 418 F. Supp. 2d 492, 496 (S.D.N.Y.
2006); see also United States v. LaBombard, 107 F. Supp. 2d 57,
58 (D. Mass. 2000).

Based upon the foregoing, and the various

facts that Woodruff has admitted, the United States is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law on Count I of its complaint.

4

B. Count II
Count II is the government’s request for enforcement of its
liens against 65 Valley Street.

That request is based upon the

following provision of the Internal Revenue Code:
In any case where there has been a refusal or neglect
to pay any tax, or to discharge any liability in
respect thereof . . . the Attorney General or his
delegate, at the request of the Secretary, may direct
a civil action to be filed in a district court of the
United States to enforce the lien of the United States
under this title with respect to such tax or liability
or to subject any property, of whatever nature, of the
delinquent, or in which he has any right, title, or
interest, to the payment of such tax or liability.
26 U.S.C. § 7403(a).
Judge Barbadoro has explained the circumstances under which
a federal tax lien arises:
A federal tax lien arises against a taxpayer’s
property when three conditions are satisfied. First,
the government must make an assessment of a taxpayer’s
tax liability. See 26 U.S.C.A. § 6203 (West 1989).
Second, the government must issue a notice of the
assessment and a demand for payment within 60 days
after the assessment is made. See 26 U.S.C.A. §
6303(a) (West 1989). Third, the taxpayer must neglect
or refuse to pay the full amount demanded. See 26
U.S.C.A. § 6321 (West 1989).
United States v. Tempelman, 111 F. Supp. 2d 85, 90 (D.N.H. 2000)
(footnotes omitted); see also United States v. Marciello, Civil
No. 09-12089-JLT, 2013 WL 1282385, at *4 (D. Mass. Jan. 28,
2013) (“The lien typically arises ‘at the time the assessment is
made . . .’”) (quoting 26 U.S.C. § 6322).

5

Here, it is undisputed that all the federal tax liens at
issue in this case arose before Woodruff conveyed 65 Valley
Street to himself and Patricia Woodruff in February of 2012.
Thus, the court can discern no legal impediment to the
enforcement of those liens.

Accordingly, the government is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Count II of its
complaint.

Conclusion
For the reasons detailed above, the government’s motion for
summary judgment, document no. 16, is granted.

The clerk of the

court shall enter judgment in accordance with this order and
close the case.
SO ORDERED.

__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States District Judge
February 26, 2014
cc:

Andrea A. Kafka, Esquire
Robert P. Woodruff, pro se
Patricia Woodruff, pro se

6