UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BEEMAN et al
Filing
91
MEMORANDUM ORDER finding pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that Defendant Beemans renewed motion under Rule 60(b) raises a substantial issue as to his entitlement to relief. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 2/9/2012. (kas)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
EBERT G. BEEMAN,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:10-cv-237-SJM
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently pending before this Court is a renewed motion by the Defendant Ebert
G. Beeman pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to obtain relief from the Orders of
Judgment entered by the Court on June 30 and July 22, 2011. At the motion hearing
held on January 31, 2012, I denied Mr. Beeman’s original Rule 60(b) motion, noting
certain deficiencies in the evidence which he had presented to the Court in support of
his motion. I nevertheless permitted Mr. Beeman seven days within which to reassert
his motion to the extent he could correct the deficiencies in the supporting evidence.
More specifically, I directed that Mr. Beeman should supply the Court with a copy of any
returns or documents that he has submitted, or which he intends to submit, to the IRS
for any of the tax years at issue, and I specifically admonished that the documents
should bear Mr. Beeman’s signature under penalty of perjury or otherwise show that he
has attested by sworn affidavit to the accuracy of the information contained in the tax
returns. I further directed that Mr. Beeman should submit an affidavit from the tax
1
preparer attesting to the method of calculation, the records relied upon, and the
accuracy of the return.
Mr. Beeman has since submitted materials within the designated time frame
which essentially comply in all material respects with my order. Nevertheless, due to
Mr. Beeman’s appeal, which is still currently pending before the Third Circuit, I remain
circumscribed in terms of my discretion to act on Mr. Beeman’s renewed Rule 60(b)
motion. Pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, my options are
limited to the following: (1) defer consideration of Mr. Beeman’s Rule 60(b) motion; (2)
deny the motion outright; or (3) state either that I would grant the motion if the court of
appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.
It bears repeating that the relevant motion before me is a motion pursuant to
Rule 60(b) for Relief from Judgment – namely the Orders of Judgment entered on June
30 and July 22, 2011 [Doc. # 40 and 48]. Rule 60(b) provides, in relevant part, that, “on
motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a
final judgment, order, or proceeding” based on various enumerated reasons, including
“any other reason that justifies relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). This catch-all
provision requires the movant to demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” to justify
relief from the judgment. See United States v. Minor, No. 11-1500, 2012 WL 29062 at *2
(3d Cir. Jan. 6, 2012) (quoting Gonzales v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005)). To meet
this burden, there must be “a showing that without relief from the judgment, an extreme
and unexpected hardship will result.” Id. (quoting Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d
244, 255 (3d Cir. 2008)).
2
The Government points out that, for purposes of Rule 60(b)(6), courts are
typically disinclined to afford relief from a judgment where the alleged hardship is the
result of the movant’s own litigation tactics. In a fairly recent unreported decision, the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed this principle when it refused to set aside a
default judgment that had previously been entered against a taxpayer in a separate
federal tax collection action. In Johnson v. United States, 375 Fed. Appx. 273 (3d Cir.
April 14, 2010), the Court of Appeals reiterated the requirement that a litigant seeking
relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must show the presence of “extraordinary circumstances”
which, in turn, requires a showing of “an extreme and unexpected hardship.” 375 Fed.
Appx. at 275. The Johnson Court found that the mere existence of an IRS lien failed to
satisfy this standard, notwithstanding the taxpayer’s claim that the lien “impair[ed] [his]
ability … to qualify as credit-worthy for most, if not all, major purchase necessities.” Id.
Noting that “extraordinary circumstances rarely exist when a party seeks relief from a
judgment that resulted from the party’s deliberate choices,” id. at 276 (quoting Budget
Blinds, 536 F.3d at 255), the court ruled that the taxpayer did not demonstrate any basis
for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
In this case, it is undeniable that the hardships which Beeman now faces as a
result of the pending Judgment Orders are borne of his own poor choices.
Notwithstanding this fact, however, there are a number of considerations present here
which distinguish this case from Johnson and which arguably present the type of
extraordinary circumstances that might make relief under Rule 60(b)(6) appropriate.
For one, unlike the taxpayer in the Johnson case, Beeman is not seeking to set
aside the judgment of a different court. This is potentially significant because, “when a
3
court is deciding whether or not to vacate another court’s judgment,” as was the case in
Johnson, the “circumstances must be even more ‘extraordinary’ because of the
additional interest in comity among the federal district courts.’” Johnson, 375 Fed.
Appx. at 275 (quoting Budget Blinds, 536 F.3d at 252). No such concerns are present
here, since we are faced only with a challenge to this Court’s own judgment orders.
Second, unlike the taxpayer in Johnson, Beeman is contesting the amount of the
Government’s tax assessments, particularly as it pertains to tax years 1997 and 2003,
as well as the interest and penalties calculated on the basis of those assessments. This
in and of itself would not likely amount to extraordinary circumstances in the ordinary
case, but it is potentially significant that, here, Beeman (or more accurately, his
accountant) is claiming that the Government over-assessed his tax liability by $877,520
for the year 2003 and by $26,552 for the year 1997. (In all other tax years, Beeman
apparently concedes that the Government correctly assessed the amount of taxes
owed, or it under-assessed him.) Regarding tax year 2003, if the calculations of
Beeman’s accountant are ultimately shown to be accurate, they would suggest that
Beeman’s tax liability for that year was overestimated by a factor of approximately 28
times what he actually owed; it would necessarily follow that the penalties and interest
calculated upon that assessment were also, by extension, grossly over-inflated.
Third, although the Government does not, and cannot be expected to, accept
Beeman’s figures at face value (particularly where Beeman himself supplied some of
the information relied upon by his accountant and the Government has not yet had an
opportunity to depose Beeman or examine the records upon which he relies), the
Government does not appear to take issue with the basic premise that consideration of
4
proper cost-basis figures might dramatically reduce Beeman’s true tax liability for the
year 2003. Since 2003 resulted in the largest tax assessment by far (i.e., $909,428.00),
a significant reduction in this figure could conceivably reveal that the Government
obtained an extraordinarily high windfall in its money judgment.
This brings us to the fourth consideration: namely, the possibility that the
Government may have obtained a grossly overly inflated judgment from a taxpayer –
albeit one who has utterly disregarded the tax laws -- does nothing to advance the
interests of justice and instead merely threatens to undermine faith in our public
institutions. Counsel for the Government contends that, even if Beeman’s figures are
ultimately shown to be accurate, he would still owe in excess of $100,000 in interest and
penalties for tax years 1997 and 2003, as well as approximately $13,000 in interest and
penalties for tax years 2007-2010. The Government also protests that Beeman has yet
to file returns for tax years 1998 through 2001.
The short answer to this is that, insofar as tax years 1998 to 2001 and 2007 to
2010 are concerned, those years do not form the basis of this litigation, nor are the
Court’s orders of judgment in this case intended to address any grievances the
Government may have with respect to those years. With respect to tax years 19982001 and 2007-2010, we assume the Government has the right and the power to
pursue the same remedies against Beeman as it has sought relative to the tax years
actually at issue in this case. Moreover, accepting the Government’s point that
Beeman’s ultimate tax liability for the years in question may well exceed $120,000, we
simply note that there is a big difference between $120,000 and the $2.1 million
judgment which has been entered against Beeman in this case. As counsel for the
5
United States has previously acknowledged, the I.R.S. has no interest in collecting more
from a taxpayer than is legitimately owed under the federal tax laws. When the
possibility exists that the Government may have obtained a windfall judgment from an
individual in the order of hundreds of thousands – and perhaps millions -- of dollars, the
interests of justice counsel against an overly rigid and formalistic application of the
court’s procedural rules.
In sum, at this juncture the Court cannot definitively say that it would grant the
Defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion if the matter were remanded from the appellate court.
Among other things, as I have noted, the Government has had no opportunity as yet to
subject the Defendant or his accountant to cross-examination concerning the materials
recently submitted, so it remains unclear at this point whether Beeman’s current
arguments in favor of Rule 60(b) relief will prove to be well-founded. Nevertheless,
Beeman’s most recent submissions do raise at least a substantial issue as to whether
the judgment orders entered in this case accurately reflect his overall liabilities for the
tax years in question. Of particular relevance, as we have noted, is tax year 2003 and,
to a much lesser extent, tax year 1997. If Beeman’s calculations are ultimately shown
to be accurate, they would arguably support a finding that “extraordinary circumstances”
are present within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(6). Accordingly, based upon the foregoing
reasons, I find pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that
Defendant Beeman’s renewed motion under Rule 60(b) raises a substantial issue as to
his entitlement to relief.1
1
This Court fully recognizes that, even if a significant miscalculation occurred respecting tax year 2003, it
would be as a result of Beeman’s own actions in failing to file timely returns and in further failing to supply
6
Entered this 9th Day of February, 2012.
s/
Sean J. McLaughlin
Sean J. McLaughlin
United States District Judge
cc:
All parties of record.
any information to the IRS which would have permitted the agency to properly calculate his cost-basis for
tax purposes. In view of this fact, I leave open the question whether, at some future point, sanctions
might be appropriate to account for the needless time, energy, and financial resources which the
Government has had to expend by virtue of Beeman’s vexatious litigation tactics. For present purposes,
that question is premature, and it need not be addressed now.
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?