United States of America v. Payton et al
Filing
28
ORDER GRANTING 21 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and GRANTING 27 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Response. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 2/2/2014. COpy mailed to pro se defendants via US Mail. (Fisher, M.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
NO. 4:13-CV-55-BO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES J. PAYTON and
RUBY PAYTON,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motion for summary judgment [DE 21] and
defendants' motion for leave to file response [DE 27]. The motions are now ripe for
adjudication. For the reasons stated herein, the plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED and defendants' motion for leave to file is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
This is a suit filed by the United States seeking (1) to reduce to judgment federal income
tax and civil penalty assessments made against Charles J. Payton ("Payton") and (2) to foreclose
the related federal tax liens against real property located at 23 81 Kay Road, Greenville, North
Carolina ("the real property").
On October 12,2001, ajury found Payton guilty ofviolating 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy
to defraud the United States) and 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) (willfully aiding or assisting preparing
fraudulent tax returns). On March 20, 2002, Payton was sentenced to 6.5 years in prison and was
ordered to pay $87,073 in restitution. On May 24, 2002, Payton transferred his home (which at
the time of the conveyance was jointly owned with Ruby Payton ("Ruby") and was encumbered
with federal tax liens against Payton) after he had already committed the criminal acts as
fraudulent tax preparer which would result in $155,000 of civil penalties, to Ruby for the sum of
$10.
DISCUSSION
Although termed a response, defendants essentially seek leave of the Court to file a
surreply. Surreplies are not provided for in the Local Rules. See Local Rule 7. However, because
defendants are proceeding pro se, the Court views their litigation activities in a different light
than it might consider the filings of professional attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007) (holding that courts must liberally construe pleadings by pro se plaintiffs). In light of
the defendants pro se status, the Court grants their motion for leave to file and considers their
proposed response in coming to its decision.
A motion for summary judgment cannot be granted unless there are no genuine issues of
material fact for trial.
FED.
R. CIV. P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 4 77 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
The moving party must demonstrate the lack of genuine issue of fact for trial and if that burden is
met, the party opposing the motion must "go beyond the pleadings" and come forward with
evidence of a genuine factual dispute. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. The Court must view the facts
and the inferences drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-88 (1986). Conclusory
allegations are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986) ("[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between
the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment.")
(emphasis in original).
2
It is clear from the briefing that none of the facts at hand are disputed. Rather, defendants
take objection with nearly every legal conclusion the plaintiff urges the Court to reach. Although
defendants take objection to the accuracy of some of the numbers plaintiff supplies, they offer no
evidence that places the accuracy of the plaintiffs numbers into question.
I.
COUNT I.
An assessment is the official recording of the Secretary of the Treasury's determination
that a taxpayer owes particular taxes, including interest, additions to tax, and assessable
penalties, imposed by the Internal Revenue Code. 26 U.S.C. §§ 6201, 6203; see Stallings v.
United States, 1993 WL 223098, *8 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 1993). It is well settled that an
assessment is entitled to a legal presumption of correctness. See e.g., United States v. Janis, 428
U.S. 433, 440 (1976); United States v. Atkins,2009 WL 4459477, *2 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2009)
(internal citations omitted).
The presumption of correctness is procedural and transfers the
burden of going forward with evidence to the taxpayer. Cebollero v. Commissioner, 967 F.2d
986, 990 (4th Cir. 1992).
Here, the evidence clearly shows that assessments have been made in the amounts
identified in the certificates of assessments. [DE 21 Ex. 2-1-2-7]. The evidence also shows that
there remains due and owing to the United States the sum of $246,277, as of December 2, 2013.
[Id. at ex. 2-8-2-14]. Although defendants dispute the amount at issue and cite the difference
between the amount cited in the complaint versus the amount cited in the motion for summary
judgment, they have failed to overcome the presumption of correctness as plaintiff adequately
explained that the difference in amounts was a result of payments made by defendants.
Accordingly, the Court renders judgment in favor of the United States and against Charles J.
3
Payton with respect to his liability for delinquent income taxes for the periods 1997 and 1998,
and delinquent civil penalties for the periods 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.
II. COUNT II.
The institution of a civil action in federal district court to enforce a lien "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" is authorized by the Internal Revenue Code. 26 U.S.C. § 7403(a). "All
persons having liens or claiming any interest in such action shall be made parties thereto." §
7403(b). The suit is a plenary action in which the Court "shall ... adjudicate all matters involved
therein and finally determine the merits of all claims to and liens upon the property." § 7403(c);
see generally United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 680-82 (1983); United States v. Nat'[
Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. 713, 720 (1985). A federal tax lien attaches to real property that a
husband and wife hold jointly even though the other spouse is wholly innocent of that liability.
Rodgers, 461 U.S. at 710-11.
Plaintiff offers two reasons why it should be able to enforce a lien against the real
property that is currently in Ruby's name. First, it argues that Payton fraudulently transferred his
interest in the real property to Ruby and therefore the transfer should be declared void.
Alternatively, it argues that the evidence shows that Ruby is Payton's nominee and therefore the
IRS's nominee lean against Ruby attaches to the real property and the United States should be
permitted to foreclose its lien and sell the real property.
A.
Fraudulent Transfer.
Summary judgment may be granted in fraudulent transfer cases based on an analysis of
the "badges of fraud" pursuant to claims brought under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39-23.4. See Triangle
Bank v. Eatmon, 547 S.E.2d 92, 95-96 (N.C. App. 2001) ("Fraudulent intent may be established
4
by circumstances, and a close family relationship coupled with less than reasonable
consideration and outstanding debts that the debtor is unable to pay is strong evidence of
fraud~"). A transfer can be set aside under North Carolina law if the transfer was made with
actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a present or future creditor. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 3923.4(a)(l). Section 39-23.4(b) provides a nonexclusive list of 13 badges of fraud that are
considered in detennining a debtor's fraudulent intent, eight of which are present in this case.
Here, Payton transferred the real property to his spouse, who is an "insider" which
implicates the first badge of fraud. After the transfer, Payton retained possession or control of the
real property as it is currently his place of residence, implicating the second badge of fraud.
Before the transfer, there is no dispute that Payton had already committed the underlying
criminal acts which would result in $155,000 in civil penalties, that the real property was
encumbered by federal tax liens, and that Payton knew he owed an $87,073 restitution order, all
of which implicate the fourth badge of fraud. At the time of transfer, the real property was the
only known asset of Payton thus implicating the fifth badge of fraud. The transfer of the real
property was a concealment of Payton's only known asset on its face which implicates the
seventh badge of fraud. At the time of the transfer Payton was insolvent because he was
incarcerated, had very limited earning capacity, and had no other known assets aside from the
real property and thus transfer implicates the ninth badge of fraud. Payton transferred the real
property two months after being convicted for willfully preparing false tax returns for others and
incurring a 87,073 debt (the restitution order), implicating the tenth badge of fraud. Finally,
Payton only received $10 of consideration for a home which Ruby estimates would sell for
$260,000 to $290,000 which implicates the twelfth badge of fraud.
5
Defendants object to plaintiff's argument that the conveyance was fraudulent and attempt
to rely on Aman v. Walker, 81 S.E. 162 (N.C. 1914), in combination with the statutory language
in section 39-23.5(a). Although the IRS had not assessed the liabilities at the time of the transfer
'
the IRS's claim arose when Payton engaged in the illegal activity. While the transfer of real
property for less than value may be deemed voluntary and valid in some instances the case at bar
is not one of them. Taken together, the factors enumerated in section 39-23.4(b), as applied in
this case, establish an intent by Payton to hinder, delay, or defraud the United States from
collecting income taxes owed for 1997 and 1998, the civil penalties for 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
and 2000, and the court-ordered restitution. As a result, Payton's transfer of his interest in the
Kay Road property to Ruby must be set aside as fraudulent under North Carolina law. As a
result, the Courts permits the foreclosure of the tax liens against the real property and the United
States is permitted to sell the property and apply fifty percent of the proceeds to Payton's
liabilities assessed in count I.
B.
Nominee Lien.
Even if the Court had not found that the transfer was fraudulent, the United States would
still be permitted to foreclose on the Kay Road property. It is well-settled that the IRS may seek
to proceed against a nominee or alter ego of a taxpayer for the "purpose of satisfying the
taxpayer's obligations." Lemaster v. United States, 891 F.2d 115, 119 (6th Cir. 1989) (citing
cases); United States v. Holland, 637 F. Supp. 2d 315 (E.D.N.C. 2009). "Focusing on the
relationship between the taxpayer and the property, the [nominee] theory attempts to discern
whether a taxpayer has engaged in a sort of legal fiction, for federal tax purposes, by placing
legal title to property in the hands of another while, in actuality, retaining all or some of the
6
benefits of being the true owner." Richards v. United States (In Re Richards), 231 B.R. 571, 578
(E.D. Pa. 1999).
The factors to consider when detennining whether Ruby is Payton's nominee are" (I)
''the treatment by the taxpayer of the asset as his own;" (2) "control over the [nominee] by the
taxpayer or a close relationship between them;" (3) "use of the [nominee's] funds to pay personal
expenses of the taxpayer;" (4) "transfer of property to the [nominee] for a nominal sum;" (5) "the
fact that the [nominee] supported the taxpayer;" (6) "whether the taxpayer expended personal
funds for the property;" (7) "whether the taxpayer enjoys the benefits of the property;" and (8)
"whether the record titleholder interfered with the taxpayer's use of the property." Holland, 637
F. Supp. 2d at 320 (citing United States v. Greer, 383 F. sup. 2d 861, 868 (W.D.N.C. 2005)).
Applying these factors to the present matter, the evidence establishes that Ruby is
Payton's nominee because (1) Payton resides at the Kay Road property; (2) Payton is married to
the Ruby; (3) Ruby does not charge Payton rent or require him to pay for any maintenance on the
home; (4) and (5) Payton transferred his fifty percent ownership of his home, self-valued at over
$260,000, to Ruby for $1 0; (6) Payton and Ruby purchased the property together in 1991; (7)
Payton pays all of the monthly utilities; (8) and (9) Payton enjoys the benefit of the real property
because he resides in the home rent free with no limits on his movements within the home, and
(10) Ruby does not interfere with Payton's use ofthe real property.
Although defendants object that all of the above circumstances are merely the
consequence of a married couple living together, this objection does not change the legal
conclusion that Ruby is Payton's nominee. While it is certainly possible that the transfer of the
real property was merely a voluntary gift between immediate family members, the circumstances
here, viewed as a whole, do not support any other conclusion besides the one that Ruby was
7
Payton's nominee and the United States is permitted to foreclose on its nominee lien against the
real property and sell the real property with fifty percent of the proceeds to go to Ruby and fifty
percent of the proceeds to be applied to Payton's liabilities.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion for leave to file is GRANTED and
plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Judgment is RENDERED in favor of
the United States and against defendant Charles J. Payton in the amount of $246,277 plus
penalties, interest and statutory additions accruing after December 2, 2013 according to law. It is
hereby DECLARED, under North Carolina law, that Charles Payton's transfer of the real
property to defendant Ruby Payton was fraudulent and is VOID; that Ruby Payton is Charles
Payton's nominee; and that the United States' tax liens attach to the real property. Judgment is
RENDERED that the tax liens are foreclosed and the real property is allowed to be sold with
fifty percent of the proceeds going to Ruby Payton and fifty percent of the proceeds going to
Charles Payton's outstanding liabilities.
SO ORDERED.
This the
k
day of February, 2014.
TE
NCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD
8
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?