United States of America v. Schmidt et al

Filing 93

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The United States Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 60 is GRANTED in part. The Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 61 is DENIED. The United States Motion for Clarification on Claims Tria ble to Jury ECF No. 81 is GRANTED and Motion to Expedite ECF No. 80 is DENIED as moot. The remaining issue (the 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C) exception to discharge) is set for a bench trial 11/21/2016 at 8:30 a.m. All remaining deadlines contained in the Scheduling Order are stricken. The parties shall file trial briefs by 11/14/2016. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
8

NO: 2:14-CV-0237-TOR
Plaintiff,
ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9
v.
10
11

BRUNO W. SCHMIDT, CHARLENE
O. SCHMIDT, and STEVENS
COUNTY WASHINGTON,

12
Defendants.
13
14

BRUNO W. SCHMIDT and
CHARLENE O. SCHMIDT,

15
Counterclaimants,
16
v.
17
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
18
Counterdefendant.
19
20

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 1

1

BEFORE THE COURT are the parties’ cross Motions for Summary

2

Judgment (ECF Nos. 60, 61). These matters were heard with oral argument on

3

October 20, 2016. Yen J. Tran and Rika Valdman appeared on behalf of the

4

Government. Defendants Bruno W. Schmidt and Charlene O. Schmidt (the

5

“Schmidts”) appeared pro se. The Court has reviewed the briefing and the record

6

and files herein, considered the parties’ arguments and is fully informed.

7
8
9

BACKGROUND
The Government initiated this action on July 22, 2014. ECF No. 1. The
Complaint contained two claims: (1) to reduce federal tax assessments to judgment

10

against the Schmidts; and (2) to foreclose federal tax liens encumbering the

11

Schmidts’ property in Stevens County, Washington. Id.

12

On December 22, 2014, the Schmidts filed a bankruptcy petition under

13

Chapter 7 in Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington. See Bankr.

14

E.D. Wash. Case No. 14-04487-FPC-7, ECF No. 1. On January 9, 2015, the Court

15

stayed this case pursuant to the automatic stay provision, 11 U.S.C. § 362. See

16

ECF No. 16. On April 1, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered a discharge for the

17

Schmidts, thus lifting the automatic stay. Bankr. E.D. Wash. Case No. 14-04487-

18

FPC7, ECF No. 17, 20; see 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C).

19
20

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 2

1

On October 28, 2015, the Government filed its First Amended Complaint

2

adding one cause of action: the fraud exception to bankruptcy discharge under 11

3

U.S.C. §523(a)(1)(C). ECF No. 36; see also ECF No. 50.

4

On November 18, 2015, the Schmidts filed their First Amended Answer.

5

ECF No. 39. The Amended Answer asserted affirmative defenses and five

6

counterclaims: (1) “time barred collection action,” (2) “cloud upon & demand for

7

quiet title,” (3) “violation of bankruptcy injunction,” (4) “unclean hands & filing of

8

false documents,” and (5) “personal tax debt was dischargeable.” Id. at ¶¶ 182-

9

204.

10

The Government filed a motion seeking dismissal of counterclaims (1), (3),

11

(4), and (5), and an answer to counterclaim (2). See ECF Nos. 48, 49. The

12

Government argued the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the

13

counterclaims failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ECF No.

14

49. The Court dismissed counterclaims (1), (3), (4), and (5) with prejudice. ECF

15

No. 56 at 14.

16

On August 22, 2016, the Government and the Schmidts filed cross motions

17

for summary judgment on the remaining claims. ECF Nos. 60, 61. The

18

Government seeks to reduce to judgment the federal income tax assessments

19

against the Schmidts and to collect through foreclosure of its liens against the

20

Schmidts’ real property.

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 3

FACTS 1

1
2

From 1976 to 1997, Mr. and Mrs. Schmidt, a married couple, regularly filed

3

their joint federal income tax returns, reported their taxable income, and paid their

4

outstanding tax liabilities. From 1979 to 1997, Mr. Schmidt worked for the

5

Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company. In early 1998, Mr. Schmidt separated from

6

this job at the Fireman’s Fund and received severance pay totaling $62,928.44.

7

The Fireman’s Fund issued a Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement and withheld

8

estimated taxes. Additionally, Mr. Schmidt received a distribution from Redwood

9

Credit Union totaling $154,446.50. Redwood issued two Forms 1099-R,

10

Statements for Recipients of Distributions from Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or

11

Profit Sharing Plans, IRAs, and Insurance Contracts. Mr. Schmidt also received a

12

distribution from Northern Trust Company totaling $9,122.77, and another Form

13

1099-R.

14

The Schmidts failed to timely file any 1998 tax return with the IRS. After

15

some prodding by the IRS and some back and forth correspondence, the Schmidts

16

submitted a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return for 1998, dated

17
18

1

19

from the Government’s Statement of Material Facts, ECF No. 60-1, and the

20

Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts, ECF No. 64-1.

The facts material to the Court’s resolution are not in dispute. They are gleaned

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 4

1

August 15, 2000.2 The Schmidts’ return reflected a filing status of married filing

2

jointly, zero in gross income, zero tax liability, and claimed a refund of

3

$21,988.27, which is the amount of estimated tax withheld by the Fireman’s Fund.

4
5

On February 26, 2001, the IRS assessed a frivolous return penalty of $500
against the Schmidts. ECF No. 61 at 4-5.

6

On November 9, 2001, the IRS sent the Schmidts a Notice of Deficiency

7

computing their 1998 tax liability for married, filing a joint return, in the amount of

8

$72,720.00. The Notice also asserted a $13,866.50 penalty for failure to file a tax

9

return and a $2,454.37 penalty for failure to pay estimated tax. The Schmidts

10

never contested this determination, even though they were advised the last day to

11

do so through a petition to the Tax Court was February 7, 2002.

12

On September 2, 2002, the IRS made timely assessments against the

13

Schmidts for their unpaid federal income tax, penalties, interest and other statutory

14

additions, onto their Master File Transaction (“MFT”) 30 account. The IRS sent

15

separate letters to each Mr. and Mrs. Schmidt detailing the assessments and

16

providing the amount they jointly owed for the tax year 1998.

17
18
19
20

2

The Schmidts filed a second, replacement return because of the IRS’s apparent

loss or destruction of the original return for a period of time.

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 5

1

The Schmidts filed multiple protests, while the IRS continued to make

2

timely assessments for penalties and interest in 2003. Then, on June 11, 2003, the

3

IRS recorded a Notice of Federal Tax Lien with the Stevens County Auditor

4

against the Schmidts for their total unpaid 1998 joint income tax liability. ECF

5

No. 60-14, Ex. 43

6

On July 31, 2009, Charlene Schmidt submitted a request for Innocent

7

Spouse Relief. As a result, the IRS internally created separate mirrored module

8

accounts (MFT 31) for the Schmidts. These accounts reflected the total

9

assessments against the Schmidts for unpaid federal income taxes, penalties,

10

interest, and other statutory additions, and the internal, joint MFT 30 account for

11

the Schmidts was cleared to zero.

12

Thereafter, the IRS continued to make assessments for penalties and interest

13

against the Schmidts, who continued to protest. On October 27, 2011, the IRS

14

recorded two Notices of Federal Tax Lien Refile with the Stevens County Auditor,

15

one for each Mr. Schmidt and Mrs. Schmidt. ECF No. 60-14, Exs. 44, 45.

16

On December 22, 2014, the Schmidts filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition

17

with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington.3

18
19
20

3

Case No. 14-04487-FPC7, ECF No.1.

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 6

1

On April 1, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Schmidts a discharge. ECF

2

No. 60-14, Ex. 42.

3

Mr. Schmidt admits the income he received in 1998, which is represented in

4

the W-2 and Forms 1099-R that he received, is taxable and he does not now

5

dispute the IRS’s assessment against him. However, the Schmidts claim that their

6

tax debts were discharged in bankruptcy, the fraud exception to bankruptcy

7

discharge does not apply to them, the tax liens were ineffective and the statute of

8

limitations prevents the IRS from collecting the debt and foreclosing on their

9

property.

10

The IRS seeks a judgment for the amount of taxes owing, excluding

11

penalties and interest on penalties (extinguished by the bankruptcy) as of August

12

29, 2016 in the amount of $137,336.99, plus statutory interest thereafter. The IRS

13

contends the fraud exception to bankruptcy prevents the discharge of this debt.

14

Additionally, the IRS seeks to foreclose its perfected lien on the Schmidts’ real

15

property for the full amount owing, because irrespective of the fraud exception, the

16

bankruptcy did not extinguish the IRS’s secured interest in the property, which is

17

$192,189.11 as of August 29, 2016, plus statutory interest thereafter.

18

//

19

//

20

//

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 7

1

DISCUSSION

2

A. Standard of Review

3

Summary judgment may be granted to a moving party who demonstrates

4

“that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is

5

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party

6

bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issues of

7

material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The burden then

8

shifts to the non-moving party to identify specific genuine issues of material fact

9

which must be decided by the factfinder at trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

10

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in

11

support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on

12

which the [factfinder] could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Id. at 252.

13

For purposes of summary judgment, a fact is “material” if it might affect the

14

outcome of the suit under the governing law. Id. at 248. A dispute concerning any

15

such fact is “genuine” only where the evidence is such that a [factfinder] could find

16

in favor of the non-moving party. Id. In ruling upon a summary judgment motion,

17

a court must construe the facts, as well as all rational inferences therefrom, in the

18

light most favorable to the non-moving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378

19

(2007). Only evidence which would be admissible at trial may be considered. Orr

20

v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002).

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 8

1

B. The Schmidts’ Tax Liability

2

The Government seeks summary judgment against the Schmidts for their

3

federal income tax liabilities for the taxable year 1998, including statutory

4

accruals, but excluding penalties and interest on penalties. ECF No. 60 at 8. The

5

Government concedes that the penalties and interest on penalties for 1998 were

6

discharged in the Schmidts’ bankruptcy case. Id. at 7. Accordingly, the

7

Government seeks a judgment for $137,336.99 as of August 29, 2016, plus

8

statutory accruals thereafter. Id. at 8; ECF No. 60-2 at 14.

9

“In an action to collect taxes, the government bears the initial burden of

10

proof.” In re Olshan, 356 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Palmer v. IRS,

11

116 F.3d 1309, 1312 (9th Cir 1997) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

12

This burden can be met by presenting federal tax assessments. See United States v.

13

Stonehill, 702 F.2d 1288, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983). Absent contrary evidence,

14

Certificates of Assessments and Payments (“Form 4340s”) are highly probative

15

and sufficient to establish that a tax assessment was properly made and notice and

16

demand for payment were sent. See, e.g., Huff v. United States, 10 F.3d 1440,

17

1445 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Generally, courts have held that IRS Form 4340 provides at

18

least presumptive evidence that a tax has been validly assessed under § 6203.”).

19
20

Here, the IRS submitted Forms 4340 demonstrating the Schmidts’ 1998 tax
liability. ECF No. 60-2, Exs. A, B, and C. The IRS bolsters that evidence with the

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 9

1

Declaration of DeWayne Dave, a Bankruptcy Specialist with the IRS. See ECF

2

No. 60-2 and attachments thereto. Although the IRS created separate mirrored

3

accounts, because Mrs. Schmidt requested Innocent Spouse Relief, the Schmidts’

4

joint and several liability remains unaffected. See, e.g., Minihan v. Commissioner,

5

138 T.C. 1, 4 n.5 (2012) (noting “[m]irror[ed] accounts are currently created

6

for . . . innocent spouse [cases],” and allow for pursuit of collection against one

7

spouse while suspending it against the other—any payment collected from the non-

8

requesting spouse would be credited to both mirrored accounts). Because the

9

IRS’s showing exceeds the minimal factual foundation necessary, the assessments

10

receive a presumption of correctness and the burden of proof shifts to the Schmidts

11

to demonstrate any error.

12

The Schmidts do not contest the calculation of the taxes and interest owing,

13

they dispute the IRS’s interpretation of the statute of limitations, the IRS’s claimed

14

exception to discharge in bankruptcy, and its internal record keeping.

15
16

1. Applicable Statute of Limitations
“Once the assessment of a tax has been made, the government may collect

17

that tax ‘by levy or by a proceeding in court’ . . . ‘within 10 years after the

18

assessment of the tax.’” United States v. Kollman, 774 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir.

19

2014) (quoting 26 U.S.C. § 6502(a)(1)). Thus, the first item of business is to

20

determine when the assessment of the tax was made. Here, the IRS sets forth

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 10

1

uncontroverted evidence that its assessment was made on September 2, 2002. ECF

2

No. 60-1 at ¶ 35. Defendants admit this assessment, ECF No. 64-1 at ¶ 17, but

3

contend the IRS’s frivolous penalty assessment of $500 imposed on February 26,

4

2001, started the statute of limitations for collection. ECF Nos. 61 at 4, 9; 61-1.

5

The IRS counters that the frivolous penalty assessment imposed pursuant to 26

6

U.S.C. § 6702, is not the tax that it is collecting in this action, it is a penalty from

7

another subchapter of the tax code. ECF No. 62 at 3-4.

8

While the frivolous penalty assessment is “assessed and collected in the

9

same manner as taxes”, it does not represent the income taxes the Schmidts owe

10

for 1998. See 26 U.S.C. § 6671(a). Nor is it an addition to the 1998 income tax,

11

see 26 U.S.C. Chapter 68, subchapter B, but rather, it is a penalty imposed

12

independently from the calculation of the taxes due and owing for 1998.

13

Accordingly, the September 2, 2002 assessment date is the beginning date

14

for purpose of calculating the 10-year statute of limitations. Congress provided

15

that the 10-year statute of limitations could be tolled (suspended) by certain events.

16

Relevant here are two types of events, a Collections Due Process (“CDP”) hearing

17

and an Offer in Compromise (“OIC”) proceeding.

18

If a CDP hearing is requested, “the running of any period of limitations

19

under section 6502 (relating to collection after assessment) . . . shall be suspended

20

for the period during which such hearing, and appeals therein, are pending.” 26

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 11

1

U.S.C. § 6330(e)(1). The tolling period begins “on the date the IRS receives the

2

taxpayer's written request for a CDP hearing.” 26 C.F.R. § 301.6330-1(g)(2)(A-

3

G1). There is no dispute that the Schmidts filed two requests for CDP hearings,

4

tolling the periods from June 29, 2003 to November 29, 2003 and November 10,

5

2008 to August 9, 2009, totaling 425 days. ECF No. 60 at 9-10.

6

Additionally, the limitations period is tolled while an OIC “is pending with

7

the [IRS]” and “if such offer is rejected, during the 30 days thereafter[.]” 26

8

U.S.C. § 6331(i)(5) and (k)(1). “[A]n offer in compromise is pending beginning

9

on the date the Secretary accepts such offer for processing.” 26 U.S.C.

10

§ 6331(k)(1). There is also no dispute that the Schmidts filed an OIC that tolled

11

the period from December 9, 2011 to September 28, 2012, totaling 294 days. ECF

12

No. 60 at 11.

13

Without any tolling, the statute of limitations would have run on September

14

2, 2012, ten years after the assessment of the tax. But here, because a total of 719

15

days were tolled, the statute of limitations for filing suit was extended to August

16

22, 2014. This action was timely because the IRS filed suit on July 22, 2014, one

17

month before the statute of limitations expired.

18
19
20

2. Exception From Discharge in Bankruptcy
In April 2015, the Schmidts received a general discharge in bankruptcy
under 11 U.S.C. § 727. ECF No. 60-13, Ex. 42. Under a general discharge order,

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 12

1

most debts are automatically discharged, except the Bankruptcy Code “provides

2

that a debtor may not discharge any tax debts ‘with respect to which the debtor

3

made a fraudulent return or willfully attempted in any manner to evade or defeat

4

such tax.'” Hawkins v. Franchise Tax Bd. of California, 769 F.3d 662, 666 (9th

5

Cir. 2014) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C), emphasis omitted).

6

The IRS seeks summary judgment that the Schmidts filed a fraudulent

7

return, thus, excepting their tax debt from discharge. ECF No. 60 at 12. The

8

Government explains that it must demonstrate “(1) a knowing falsehood; (2) an

9

intent to evade taxes; and (3) an underpayment of tax.” ECF No. 60 at 12; see also

10

United States v. Parker, 578 F. App’x 669, 671 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Considine v.

11

United States, 683 F.2d 1285, 1286 (9th Cir. 1982); and In re Su, 290 F.3d 1140,

12

1146 (9th Cir. 2002) (applying subjective standard focusing on the debtor’s state of

13

mind for § 523(a)(6)’s nondischargeability provision). The creditor is required to

14

prove each of the elements of nondischargeability by a preponderance of the

15

evidence. See In re Hashemi, 104 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Grogan

16

v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 291 (1991)).

17

The IRS contends the Court can infer the Schmidts’ fraudulent intent

18

through circumstantial evidence from the various badges of fraud present in this

19

case. ECF No. 60 at 13-18. The Schmidts dispute any fraud on their part,

20

explaining the tortured history of this case and supporting their position with a

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 13

1

plethora of documents, correspondence and proffered testimony. At summary

2

judgment, the Court must construe the facts, as well as all rational inferences

3

therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Scott v. Harris, 550

4

U.S. at 378, and does not make credibility determinations, Anderson v. Liberty

5

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 255. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

6

the Schmidts, the Court cannot find the necessary fraudulent intent to grant the

7

IRS’s motion. Accordingly, the IRS’s motion for summary judgment will be

8

denied on this issue.

9

3. Discrepancies in the IRS’s Internal Paperwork

10

The Schmidts cite to a number of mistakes in the IRS’s internal paperwork.

11

None of the mistaken entries are material to the issues before the Court.

12

Accordingly, but for the outstanding issue regarding dischargability for which a

13

trial is necessary, the IRS is otherwise entitled to partial summary judgment. 4

14

//

15
16

4

Mrs. Schmidt continues to assert her innocent spouse defense. The IRS denied

17

her innocent spouse status and she did not appeal to the Tax Court. 26 U.S.C.

18

§ 6015(e). Since Mrs. Schmidt did not pay the tax and file a refund suit in the

19

district court, that issue is not properly before this Court. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 7422,

20

6015(e)(3).

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 14

1

C. Whether the Government is Entitled to Foreclose

2

The IRS seeks to foreclose its perfected lien on the Schmidts’ real property

3

for the full amount owing, $192,189.11 as of August 29, 2016, plus statutory

4

interest thereafter. 5 The Schmidts contend the liens on their property were released

5

and extinguished as of October 3, 2012. ECF No. 61 at 14.

6

The parties agree that on June 11, 2003, the IRS recorded a Notice of

7

Federal Tax Lien with the Stevens County Auditor for the Schmidts unpaid 1998

8

income tax liability. ECF Nos. 60-1 at ¶ 71; 64-1 at ¶ 46; 60-14 Ex. 43. The

9

parties also agree that the IRS recorded two Notices of Federal Tax Lien Refile

10

with the Stevens County Auditor, one for each of the Schmidts for the full amount

11

of their unpaid 1998 income tax liability. ECF Nos. 60-1 at ¶ 72; 64-1 at ¶ 47

12

(preserving challenge as to whether the refiles were effective because they were

13
14

5

Upon assessment, the law creates a lien in favor of the United States on all real

15

and personal property belonging to the taxpayer, 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321. See U.S. By

16

& Through I.R.S. v. McDermott, 507 U.S. 447, 448 (1993). Perfection of a lien is

17

the filing of notice as to the identity of the lienor, the property subject to the lien

18

and the amount thereof. See id. at 449. Perfection concerns priority of competing

19

liens, as “the first in time is the first in right.” Id. (citation omitted). There are no

20

competing liens in this case.

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 15

1

associated with MFT 31 accounts, not the original MFT 30 account); 60-14 Exs.

2

44, 45.

3

The Schmidts point to four letters and notices of federal tax liens sent to

4

them in October and November 2011, contending that these liens expired on their

5

own. ECF Nos. 61 at 13-15; 61-4 (Ex. D); 61-5 (Ex. E); 61-6 (Ex. F); 61-7 (Ex.

6

G). For whatever reason and maybe because the IRS discovered its mistake in

7

preparing these documents, they were never filed with the Stevens County Auditor.

8

The Schmidts acknowledge as much. ECF No. 61-9 (Ex. J). Consequently, these

9

documents bear no legal significance, they were not recorded.

10

Inexplicably and also without legal significance, the IRS filed a series of

11

revocations of releases of federal tax liens. But, because there was never a release

12

of lien filed, there was never anything to revoke. See ECF No. 60-14, Exs. 46

13

(revocation of release), 47 (same), 48 (same), 49 (revocation of revocation of

14

release), 50 (same), 51 (same), 52 (corrected revocation of revocation of release),

15

53 (same), and 54 (same). Since the liens were never released, any revocation of

16

an unidentified release of lien was ineffectual.

17

The first lien that was in fact filed would have expired on its own according

18

to its limiting language. ECF No. 60-14, Ex. 43 (“unless notice of the lien is

19

refiled by the date given in column (e) [10/2/2012], this notice shall, on the day

20

following such date, operate as a certificate of release. . .”). But that automatic lien

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 16

1

release never occurred because the IRS timely filed (October 27, 2011) two

2

Notices of Federal Tax Lien Refile that did not expire according to their terms.

3

ECF No. 60-14, Exs. 44, 45. Those are the operative documents and those support

4

the IRS’s foreclosure in this case. 6

5

The undisputed material evidence shows the IRS is entitled to foreclose its

6

liens encumbering the Schmidts’ property. 7 Because the IRS has valid liens

7

encumbering the property, the Schmidts’ remaining counterclaim to quiet title is

8

denied.

9

D. Sale of the Subject Property

10

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7403, the Government may enforce a lien by

11

commencing an action in the district court, joining all parties with an interest in the

12

property, and requesting a judicial sale of the property. See United States v.

13

Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 692-93 (1983) (Ҥ 7403(c) provides that the district court

14

should ‘determine the merits of all claims to and liens upon the property, and, in all

15
6

On August 1, 2014, the Government recorded a Notice of Lis Pendens, putting

16
others on notice as well that this lawsuit was pending. ECF No. 14.
17
18

7

Since there are no competing liens, this discussion is only relevant to show that

19

the IRS’s perfected liens survived the Schmidts’ bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C.

20

§ 522(c)(2)(B); In re Isom, 901 F.2d 744, 745-46 (9th Cir. 1990).

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 17

1

cases where a claim or interest of the United States therein is established, may

2

decree a sale of such property . . . and a distribution of the proceeds of such sale

3

according to the findings of the court in respect to the interests of the parties and of

4

the United States.’” (emphasis in original omitted)).

5

There is no dispute that the Schmidts own the subject property, there are no

6

other parties with an interest and the Schmidts have not paid their tax liabilities.

7

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7403, the Court will order the sale of the Subject Property

8

to satisfy the Schmidts’ federal tax debt.

9

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

1. The United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 60) is
GRANTED in part.
2. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 61) is
DENIED.
3. Promptly after the conclusion of the bench trial, the United States shall
file a proposed Order of Sale to effectuate the foreclosure.
4. The remaining issue (the 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C) exception to

17

discharge) is set for a bench trial November 21, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. All

18

remaining deadlines contained in the Scheduling Order are stricken. The

19

parties shall file trial briefs by November 14, 2016 and promptly notify

20

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 18

1

the Court if the matter settles or Plaintiff chooses to forego seeking a

2

personal money judgment against the Defendants.

3

5. The United States’ Motion for Clarification on Claims Triable to Jury

4

(ECF No. 81) is GRANTED as indicated above and Motion to Expedite

5

(ECF No. 80) is DENIED as moot.

6
7
8
9
10

6. All pending in limine motions and objections to witnesses, exhibits, etc.
will be decided at trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this
Order and provide copies to the parties.
DATED November 1, 2016.

11
12
13

THOMAS O. RICE
Chief United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 19