United States of America v. Beam
Filing
17
ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry), IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The United States of Americas motion 11 for summary judgment is GRANTED; 2. The Clerk is directed to TERM Defendant Troy A. Beams Motion 14 to Strike Unit ed States Motion for Summary Judgment; 3. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of the United States of America and against Defendant Troy A. Beam in the amount of $1,163,055.55, plus statutory additions and interest accruing from December 25, 2017, until the date the judgment is satisfied; and4. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 6/12/18. (rw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff
v.
TROY A. BEAM,
Defendant
:
:
:
No. 1:16-cv-00387
:
:
(Judge Kane)
:
:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff United States of America (the “Government”), filed the above-captioned action
to reduce to judgment federal tax assessments made against Defendant Troy A. Beam for the
1997 and 1998 tax years. (Doc. No. 1.) Presently before the Court is the Government’s motion
for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 as to the tax liability owed
by Defendant (Doc. No. 11), and Defendant’s motion to strike the Government’s motion for
summary judgment (Doc. No. 14). For the reasons provided herein, the Court will grant the
Government’s motion for summary judgment, and deny Defendant’s motion to strike.
I.
BACKGROUND1
Defendant failed to file his federal tax returns for the 1997 and 1998 tax years. (Doc. No.
13 ¶ 1.) As a result, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), prepared substitute returns on
1
Local Rule 56.1 instructs that a motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56 must be accompanied by a “separate, short, and concise statement of material
facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried.” L.R. 56.1. A
party opposing the motion for summary judgment must respond in like manner to the statement
of material facts by identifying the genuine issues to be tried. While the Government has filed a
statement of material facts in connection with its motion for summary judgment, Defendant has
not complied with Local Rule 56.1 by filing his own statement of material facts that responds to
the numbered paragraphs set forth in the moving party’s Rule 56.1 statement. Consequently, the
Court will deem the material facts set forth in the Government’s Rule 56.1 statement as admitted
for purposes of resolving the pending motion for summary judgment. The following relevant
facts of record are thus extracted from the Government’s statement of material facts.
1
Defendant’s behalf for those years pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b), and assessed Defendant’s
unpaid federal income tax liabilities as follows:
Tax Year
Assessment Date
1997
03/06/2006
Balance Owed
(as of 12/25/2017)
$638,280.05
$450,628.84
1998
03/06/2006
$642,967.28
$712,426.71
Total
$1,163,055.55
Assessment
(Id. ¶¶ 2-3.) Despite receiving an assessment notice and a demand for payment, Defendant failed
to pay the full amount due and owing for the unpaid federal income taxes for the tax years 1997
and 1998. After the application of all abatements, payments, and credits, as well as addition of
penalties and interest, as of December 25, 2017, Defendant remains indebted to the Federal
Government in the amount of $1,163,055.55, plus statutory additions and accrued interest after
that date. (Id. ¶¶ 4-6.)
On March 3, 2016, the Government filed the above-captioned action to reduce to
judgment Defendant’s unpaid tax liabilities pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7402. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 1.)
On May 9, 2016, Defendant, proceeding pro se, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint (Doc.
No. 4), which this Court denied in an Order dated March 29, 2017 (Doc. No. 9). Thereafter, the
Government filed the pending motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56 (Doc. No. 11), together with a brief in support (Doc. No. 12), a statement of
material facts (Doc. No. 13), and several corresponding exhibits, including the declaration of
Revenue Officer Jakob Pedersen (Doc. No. 13-1), IRS Forms 4340— Certificates of
Assessments and Payments with regard to Defendant’s individual income tax returns for the tax
2
periods ending in December 31, 1997 and December 31, 1998 (Doc. No. 13-2)—and certified
account transcripts for the same liabilities (Doc. No. 13-3).
On December 28, 2017, Defendant filed a one-page “Motion to Strike United States’
Motion for Summary Judgment,” construed as a brief in opposition to the Government’s motion
for summary judgment.2 (Doc. No. 14.) Having been fully briefed, this matter is now ripe for
disposition.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) requires the court to enter summary judgment “if
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). “[T]his standard provides that
the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an
otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no
genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
A factual dispute is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law,
and is genuine only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis that would allow a reasonable fact
finder to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. at 248-49. Thus, where no material fact
is in dispute, the moving party need only establish that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Id. at 248. Conversely, where there is a dispute as to an issue of material fact, the moving
party must establish that the factual dispute is not a genuine one. Id.
2
The Government filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion to strike on January 11, 2018.
(Doc. No. 15.) However, the Court need not address the substance of the Government’s
response, as it construes Defendant’s motion as an opposition to the Government’s motion for
summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court will direct the Clerk to administratively term the
motion to strike.
3
The party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of identifying evidence
that it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Conoshenti v. Pub.
Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2004). Once the moving party has carried
this initial burden, “the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.
574, 586–87 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the non-moving party “fails to make a
showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on
which that party will bear the burden at trial,” summary judgment is warranted. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence that the nonmoving party must provide, a court should grant summary judgment where the non-movant’s
evidence is merely colorable, conclusory, or speculative. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50. There
must be more than a scintilla of evidence supporting the non-moving party and more than some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Id. at 252; see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).
III.
DISCUSSION
The Government moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 to reduce to judgment
the tax assessments made against Defendant for unpaid federal income tax liabilities and
statutory additions to tax for the 1997 and 1998 tax years on the basis that there exists no genuine
issue of material fact, therefore entitling it to judgment as a matter of law. (Doc. No. 12 at 1.) In
support of its motion for summary judgment, the Government has proffered, inter alia, certified
copies of IRS Forms 4340—the certificates of assessments and payments—which detail
Defendant’s income tax liability for each tax year in question.
4
Having reviewed the record evidence and briefing filed in connection with the
Government’s motion for summary judgment, the Court finds that the Government is entitled to
summary judgment on its tax assessments against Defendant. In the context of a motion for
summary judgment to recover tax liability, the Court must engage in a burden-shifting analysis.
As a threshold matter, the Government predicates its motion for summary judgment on the
presumptive validity of its assessments of Defendant’s tax liability. An IRS assessment is
“presumed to be valid and establish[es] a prima facie case of liability against a taxpayer.”3
United States v. Green, 201 F.3d 251, 253 (3d Cir. 2000). “The presumption extends to
assessments of non-fraud civil penalties and interest.” United States v. Sollenberger, 150 F.
Supp. 3d 393, 400 (M.D. Pa. 2015), judgment entered, No. 1:12-cv-1488, 2015 WL 8781280
(M.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2015) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Sadler, No. 13-cv-7207,
2015 WL 4610950, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2015) (“Further, applying the penalties for failure to
timely file, failure to prepay tax, and failure to timely pay tax, requires nothing more than an
examination of the underlying assessment, the date of the return, and the amount of the
deficiency. Because the underlying assessment is entitled to a presumption of correctness, it
follows logically that penalties based entirely on the date and amount of that assessment should
also be presumed correct.”). Applied here, it is clear that the Government has established its
prima facie case through the declaration of Jakob Pedersen and certified transcripts reflecting the
income tax assessments, penalties, and interest owed by Defendant for the tax years of 1997 and
1998. See Green, 201 F.3d at 253 (“Assessments are presumed to be valid, and establish a prima
facie case of liability against a taxpayer.”); Freck v. I.R.S., 37 F.3d 986, 992 n.8 (3d Cir. 1994)
3
“An assessment is the official recording of the Secretary of the Treasury’s determination that a
taxpayer owes particular taxes, including interest, addition to tax, and assessable penalties,
imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.” United States v. Zeunen, No. 3:10-cv-2213, 2011 WL
6130755, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2011) (citing 26 U.S.C §§ 6201, 6203).
5
(“Assessments are generally presumed valid and establish a prima facie case of liability against a
taxpayer.”). Thus, the burden shifts to Defendant, the assessed party, to rebut the presumption of
liability through an evidentiary showing that the assessments are incorrect. See Brounstein v.
United States, 979 F.2d 952, 954 (3d Cir. 1992).
Defendant has failed to produce evidence to rebut the presumption of validity as to the
Government’s assessments of his unpaid tax liability for the relevant tax period. Rather, in his
motion to strike, Defendant relies on his own bare, unsupported assertion that “[b]ased on all the
[m]otions filed in this [C]ourt and the [Government’s] failure to dispute the material facts set
forth, this Court has sufficient evidence that the IRS’s assessments are erroneous and grossly
incorrect and that the United States is not entitled to summary judgment.” (Doc. No. 14 at 1);
see also Olson v. GE Astrospace, 101 F.3d 947, 951 (3d Cir. 1996) (“In order to demonstrate the
existence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmovant must supply sufficient evidence (not
mere allegations) for a reasonable jury to find for the nonmovant.”). Indeed, Defendant’s
allegations that the IRS’s assessments are erroneous amount to nothing more than mere
speculation. As Defendant has presented no evidence contesting the validity or correctness of
the Government’s tax assessments so as to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the
existence or amount of the underlying tax liability for the tax period at issue, the Court will grant
the Government’s motion for summary judgment.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, the Court will grant the Government’s motion for summary
judgment and enter judgment against Defendant for all outstanding tax liability for the tax years
of 1997 and 1998, inclusive of interest and penalties, in the amount of $1,163,055.55 plus
6
statutory additions and interest from December 25, 2017, until the date the judgment is satisfied.
An appropriate Order follows.
7
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?