Milton v. United States Internal Revenue Service

Filing 27

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 24 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (SWT)

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

ANDREW MILTON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE )
SERVICE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00554-RAJ
ORDER

15

I.

16

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.

17
18

INTRODUCTION

Dkt. # 24. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the motion.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD

19

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a
20

“showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which
21
22
23

could not have been brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”
Local R. W.D. Wash. (“LCR”) 7(h)(1).

24
25
ORDER - 1

1
2
3
4
5

II.

DISCUSSION

The facts of this case are familiar to this Court and the parties, and the Court will
not reiterate them here. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration because (1) the Court granted the
Government’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. ## 20, 22) without allowing Plaintiff to
object, and (2) Plaintiff claims that new authority has surfaced that impacts whether his

6

counselor’s statement is a “physician” statement for purposes of Revenue Procedure 997

21. Dkt. # 24.
8
9
10

Plaintiff’s first argument falls flat. Plaintiff does not deny that the cited legal
authority supports the jurisdictional conclusion, which it does. See Dkt. # 22. Moreover,

11

were the Court to reconsider its decision based solely on the fact that it did not take into

12

account Plaintiff’s objection, the jurisdictional matter would still be at issue in light of

13

binding precedent. This circumstance simply does not reach the level of manifest error

14

required by LCR 7(h)(1). Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion on the grounds

15

that he was unable to object to the Government’s prior motion.

16
17
18

Plaintiff argues that he discovered new authority that questions the “physician”
requirement under Revenue Procedure 99-21. Plaintiff cites to a Report and
Recommendation from a district court outside this circuit. Dkt. ## 24, 26. In that case,

19

the Government has filed strong objections to the Report and Recommendation and the
20

district court judge has not yet ruled on the issue. See Report and Recommendation,
21
22
23

Stauffer v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:15-cv-10271-MLW (D. Mass. Feb. 14, 2017),
ECF No. 28. This filing is not binding authority.

24
25
ORDER - 2

1

Plaintiff’s argument fails even if the Court were to consider the Report and

2

Recommendation pending in Stauffer. There, the magistrate judge discussed varying

3

levels of agency deference, citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resource Defense

4
5

Council, 467 U.S. 576 (2000) and Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944). Id. at
8-10. This kind of analysis—that is, whether to defer to agency interpretation or not—is

6

not new, and Plaintiff could have made these arguments in his initial response to the
7

Government’s motion to dismiss. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to meet his burden under LCR
8
9
10
11
12
13

7(h)(1).
III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration. Dkt. # 24.
Dated this 16th day of August, 2017.

14
15

17

A

18

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

16

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDER - 3