UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LAGOWITZ

Filing 24

OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jose L. Linares on 02/11/2019. (sms)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT Of NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Civil Action No.: 17-6910 (JLL)

Plaintiff,

OPINION

v.
JEFFREY LAGOWITZ,
Defendant.

LINARES, Chief District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court by way of Plaintiff United States of America’s (“the
Government”) motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 22). Pro se Defendant Jeffrey Lagowitz
has not opposed Plaintiffs motion. The Coctrt decides this matter without oral argLtment pursuant
to Rule 7$ of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

grants the Government’ s motion.
I.

BACKGROUND’

The Government filed a lawsuit on September $, 2017 against Jeffrey Lagowitz to collect
on his unpaid income tax liabilities for the years 2005 to 200$, and 2010 to 2013. (Gov’t 56.1

¶

1). The Government subsequently amended its complaint to add Lagowitz’s tax liability for 2014.

These background facts are taken from the Government’s statement of undisputed material facts, pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 56.1, (ECF No. 22-2 (“Gov’t 56.1”)). The Court notes that Defendant has not opposed the motion and
has not submitted a corresponding responsive statement of material facts. Accordingly, the Court treats the
statements contained in Gov’t 56.1 as undisputed. See L. Civ. P.. 56.1(a) (“The opponent of summary judgment
shall furnish. with its opposition papers. a responsive statement of material facts. addressing each paragraph of the
movant’s statement, indicating agreement or disagreement and, if not agreed. stating each material fact in dispute
and citing to the affidavits and other documents submitted in coirnection with the motion: any material fact not
disputed shall be deemed undisputed for purposes of the summary judgment motion.”)

(Id.

¶

1). Lagowitz subsequently paid off his tax liabilities for the years 2005 through 2008, so

this lawsuit now concerns only years 2010 through 2014. (Id.

¶ 4).

A delegate of the Secretary of the Treasciry has made tax liability assessments against
Lagowitz based on his self-reported income from his federal tax returns. (Id.

¶ 3).

Those amounts.

including accrued but not assessed penalties and interest as of October 1,2018 are as follows:
Tax Type

Tax Period Ending

Date of Assessment

Amount of Assessment

Income (Form 1040)

12/31/2010

12/26/2011

$83.942.53

Income (Form 1040)

12/31/2011

2/13/2017

S24.593.45

Income (Form 1040)

12/3 1/20 12

2/27/2017

$76,404.39

Income (Form 1040)

12/3 1/2013

3/06/20 17

$375,450.87

Income (Form 1040)

12/31/2014

10/09/2017

5652.968.39

TOTAL: $1,213,359.63

(Id.

¶J

4—5).

Lagowitz has failed to pay the United States the amount owed under the tax

assessment, and the Government is now moving for summary judgment to collect on that unpaid
amount. (Id.

¶ 7;

ECF No. 22). Lagowitz has made next to no effort to contest the Government’s

claims, however, the Court is aware of his pm se status, and has taken that into account when
evaluating the Government’s motion.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when, drawing all reasonable inferences in the non
movant’s favor, there exists 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). “[T]he moving party must

show that the

non-moving party has failed to establish one or more essential elements of its case on which the
non-moving party has the burden of proof at trial.” Mccabe v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 494 F.3d 418,
424 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Celotex Co,ip. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322—23 (1986)).
The Court must consider all facts and their reasonable inferences in the light most favorable

to the non-moving party. See Pa. Coal Ass’n v. Babbitt, 63 f.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir. 1995). If a
reasonable juror could return a verdict for the non-moving party regarding disputed issues of
material fact, summary judgment is not appropriate. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248 (1986). “[Alt the summary judgment stage the jcidge’s function is not himself to weigh
the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue
for trial.” Id. at 249.
III.

ANALYSIS

The Government argues that it has established a prima fade case of Lagowitz’s liability

that he has failed to rebut. The Court agrees. Tax “[a]ssessments are presumed to be valid, and
establish a prima facie case of liability against a taxpayer.” United States v. Green, 201 F.3d 251,

253 (3d Cir. 2000).

As mentioned above, Lagowtiz has made no effort to contest the tax

assessment. Thus, he has failed to meet his burden of challenging the assessment. United States
v. Jones, 877 F. Supp. 907, 913 (D.N.J. 1995) (noting that at the summary judgment stage, the
defendant need only “establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact with regard to the
validity or correctness of the assessments”). Accordingly, the Court will grant the Government’s
motion for summary judgment requesting $1 ,2 13,359.63 in unpaid taxes, plus statutory interest
accruing after October 1, 2018. (ECf No. 22).

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court grants P’aintiffs motion

for

summary judgment.

An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.

DATED: February

/(

,

20W
United States District Court

4