UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LESONIK et al
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 26 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 35 Defendant's Motion to Stay; granting 28 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel responses to discovery. AND NOW, this 2nd day of October, 2012, and fo r the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 26] is DENIED. Defendant's Motion for Protective Order [Dkt. No. 35] is also DENIED. The United States' Motion to Compel [Dkt. No. 28] is GRANTED. Defendant is hereby ORDERED to (1) provide Initial Disclosures and (2) provide full and complete responses to the United States' First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on or before November 1, 2012. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 10/2/2012. (jdg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID L. LESONIK, et al.,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 12-65 Erie
District Judge McLaughlin
MEMORANDUM OPINION
McLAUGHLIN, SEAN J., J.
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant David L. Lesonik’s Motion to
Dismiss [Dkt. No. 26] and the United States of America’s Motion to Compel responses
to discovery [Dkt. No. 28]. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340,
1345 and 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402, 7403.
The United States filed the instant action on March 1, 2012, seeking to reduce
federal income tax assessments against Defendant to judgment and foreclose on
Defendant’s real property pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7403 in order to satisfy that judgment.
The only argument raised in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is that this action must be
dismissed with prejudice because the government “[does] not have a statute that makes
an individual LIABLE for INCOME taxes.”
original).
1
(Motion to Dismiss, p. 1) (emphasis in
This precise assertion, as well as countless other “frivolous tax-protester
arguments,” has been “uniformly and conclusively rejected by every court that has
examined the issue,” typically without further discussion.1 Belmont v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, 2007 WL 686388, *1 (U.S. Tax. Ct. 2007) (rejecting petitioner’s taxprotester arguments as “frivolous and without merit”); Jibilian v. United States, 2005 WL
1491908, * (Fed. Cl. 2005) (characterizing the argument that “there is no law that makes
[plaintiff] liable for income tax” as “without merit and frivolous”); see also, e.g., Crain v.
Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984) (“We perceive no need to refute
these [tax-protester] arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of
precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.”);
Upton v. I.R.S., 104 F.3d 543, 545 n. 1 (2nd Cir. 1997) (stating that the plaintiff’s “tax
protestor arguments” were “barely worth a footnote”); United States v. Hilgeford, 7 F.3d
1340, 1342 (7th Cir. 1993) (characterizing such arguments as “shop worn” and without
merit); Robnett v. United States, 165 B.R. 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting that tax
protest issues are “completely without merit” and serve no purpose “except to clog the
court’s dockets, waste judicial time and cause protracted delays in worthy litigation.”);
United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992) (stating that constitutional
tax protest issues are “completely without merit, patently frivolous and will be rejected
without expending any more of this Court’s resources on their discussion.”); United
States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983) (contention that individuals have no
duty to pay income taxes is “totally without arguable merit”); Maxwell v. I.R.S. 2009 WL
920533, *2 (M.D. Tenn. 2009) (argument that “no law exists which imposes an income
1
We note, parenthetically, that 26 U.S.C. § 1(a) imposes an income tax upon the income of “every” United States citizen
and that, pursuant to § 1(a), 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(b) provides that “all citizens of the United States . . . are liable to the income taxes
imposed by the Code . . .”.
2
tax” has been “routinely rejected”); Bonnaccorso v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 2005
WL 3241913, **1-2 (U.S. Tax. Ct. 2005) (argument that petitioner had found “no code
section that made [him] liable for any income tax” had been “consistently rejected and
characterized as frivolous in innumerable cases” and required no discussion).
For the same reasons, the United States’ Motion to Compel Defendant to
respond to discovery requests is granted. To date, Defendant has responded to each of
the government’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents by
repeating his arguments concerning the viability of the federal income tax and refusing
to participate in discovery until his Motion to Dismiss was resolved. (Motion to Compel,
Exhs. A-D). That motion now having been denied, Defendant is ordered to participate
in discovery forthwith by: (1) providing Initial Disclosures and (2) providing full and
complete responses to the United States’ First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of
Requests for Production of Documents on or before November 1, 2012.2
2
On September 17, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion for Protective Order [Dkt. No. 35] wherein he requested that the Court
stay discovery pending resolution of his Motion to Dismiss. That motion having been resolved herein, Defendant’s motion for
protective order is denied as moot.
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID L. LESONIK, et al.,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 12-65 Erie
District Judge McLaughlin
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of October, 2012, and for the reasons set forth in the
accompanying Memorandum Opinion,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 26] is
DENIED. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order [Dkt. No. 35] is also DENIED. The
United States’ Motion to Compel [Dkt. No. 28] is GRANTED.
Defendant is hereby
ORDERED to (1) provide Initial Disclosures and (2) provide full and complete responses
to the United States’ First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production
of Documents on or before November 1, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sean J. McLaughlin
United States District Judge
cm: All parties of record. ___
4
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?