Goodell v. USA

2003 DNH 174

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: October 14, 2003
• Docket: CV-03-118-M
• Status: Published

Opinion

Goodell v. USA CV-03-118-M 10/14/03 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Duane Goodell, Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 03-118-M Opinion No. 2003 DNH 174 United States of America, Defendant

O R D E R

Plaintiff, Duane Goodell, is a taxpayer against whom the

Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") imposed two $500 penalties for

filing frivolous income tax returns.1 He is suing the United

States of America, alleging that the IRS penalty was imposed in

violation of various sections of the Internal Revenue Code.

Plaintiff's complaint seems to be the first appearance in

this district of a set of claims that have been raised, almost

verbatim, in courts across the country by "zero-filers"

challenging IRS determinations that income tax returns listing

1 Plaintiff filed an amended personal income tax return for 1998 listing all zeros, despite having earned approximately $85,000 from insurance sales, and filed a return for 1999 listing all zeros, despite having earned approximately $112,000 from insurance sales. (Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 3 at 5.) all zeros are frivolous. See, e.g., Loze v. United States, No.

CIV A 02-1721, 2003 WL 1547283 (E.D. La. Feb. 13, 2003) (granting

defendant's motion for summary judgment); Gregory v. United

States, No. CIV A 1 :02-CV-889-CC, 2003 WL 701218 (N.D. G a . Jan.

15, 2003) (granting defendant's motion to dismiss or for summary

judgment); Tornichio v. United States, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1097

(N.D. Ohio 2002) (granting defendant's motion to dismiss and

noting that "[c]ourts have also consistently found identical

arguments to the ones here to be frivolous") (citations omitted);

Carroll v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 2d 852, 858 (W.D. Tenn.

2002) (granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and

awarding defendant fees and costs, due to "the frivolous nature

of plaintiff's arguments"); Kelly v. United States, 209 F. Supp.

2d 981 (E.D. Mo. 2002) (granting defendant's motion for summary

judgment); Rennie v. IRS, 216 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (E.D. Cal. 2002)

(granting defendant's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment);

Cole v. United States, No. 1:02-CV-137, 2002 WL 31495841 (W.D.

Mich. Oct. 21, 2002) (granting defendant's motion for summary

judgment); Bentley v. IRS, No. 4:02 CV 1391, 2002 WL 31274045

(N.D. Ohio Sept. 10, 2002) (dismissing plaintiff's claim sua

soonte); see also Jones v. Comm'r, 338 F.3d 463, 466 (5th Cir.

2 2003) (affirming Tax Court decision that presentation of Form

4340 meets the statutory requirement that "[t]he appeals officer

shall at the hearing obtain verification from the Secretary that

the requirements of any applicable law or administrative

procedure have been met"); Roberts v. Comm'r, 329 F.3d 1224, 1228

(11th Cir. 2003) (affirming Tax Court decision that presentation

of Form 4340 "meets the requirements of [26 U.S.C.] § 6330 and

[26 C.F.R.] § 301 .6203-1") .

For the reasons stated therein, and for the reasons given in

the opinions cited above. Defendant's motion for summary judgment

(document no. 6) is granted. The Clerk of Court shall enter

judgment in accordance with this order and close the case.

SO ORDERED.

Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

October 14, 2003

cc: Duane Goodell Thomas P. Cole, Esq.