Milton v. United States Internal Revenue Service

Filing 27

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

Download PDF
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

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?