United States v. Buckardt

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 31, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00052
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 11 CASE NO. C19-00052 RAJ Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING ELMER J. BUCKARDT, et. al., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 13 DISMISS Defendants. 14 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 12). 18 For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion. 19 II. BACKGROUND 20 The following is taken from the Government’s Complaint, which is assumed to be 21 true for the purposes of this motion to dismiss, as well as other documents that have been 22 judicially noticed as noted below. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007). 23 The parties in this action appear to have a lengthy history, beginning as early as 2000, 24 when the Government began assessing tax liabilities against Defendant Elmer Buckardt 25 (“Mr. Buckardt”) for unpaid federal income taxes. Dkt. # 18 at 4. In 2002, Mr. Buckardt 26 filed a petition in Tax Court contesting the IRS’ notice of deficiency for income tax year 27 1 2002. Dkt. # 18-2, Ex. 16.1 The Tax Court subsequently found Mr. Buckardt liable for a 2 deficiency in federal income taxes and penalties and cautioned him against advancing 3 frivolous and groundless arguments. Dkt. # 18-2, Ex. 21. And so it continued. Over the 4 next several years, the Government continued to assess tax liabilities against Mr. 5 Buckardt and Mr. Buckardt continued to file petitions contesting the IRS’ notices of 6 deficiency. See Dkt. # 18-2, Exs. 16, 19-21, 24. 7 Most recently, on October 10, 2017, Mr. Buckardt filed another petition in Tax 8 Court alleging that he never received notices of deficiency or notices of determination for 9 tax years 2000-2015. Dkt. # 18-1, Ex. C. In response, the IRS moved to dismiss Mr. 10 Buckardt’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. Dkt. # 12-1 at 6. The Tax Court granted the 11 motion to dismiss, noting that the IRS had not issued a notice of deficiency or notice of 12 determination for tax years 2000-2015, within the timeframe sufficient to confer 13 jurisdiction. Dkt. # 12-1 at 2. 14 On January 11, 2019, the Government filed a Complaint against Elmer Buckardt, 15 Karen Buckardt, the D’Skell Agape Society, and Snohomish County, asking the Court to: 16 (1) reduce the outstanding tax assessments against Mr. Buckardt to judgments, (2) set 17 aside transfers of two of the Buckardt’s properties to the D’Skell Agape Society, (3) 18

19 1 The Government submits several documents in support of its Opposition. See Dkt. # 20 18-1, 18-2. A court typically cannot consider evidence beyond the four corners of the 21 complaint, without converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). However, the Court may take judicial 22 notice, sua sponte, of a “fact not subject to reasonable dispute” at any stage of the proceeding. This includes undisputed matters of public record, including court filings 23 and authentic documents recorded with a governmental agency. Lee at 689; Hughes v. 24 United States, 953 F.2d 531, 535, 540 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[O]fficial documents-such as IRS forms-are probative evidence in and of themselves and, in the absence of contrary 25 evidence, are sufficient to establish that notices and assessments were properly made.”). 26 Because the documents submitted by the Government are all court filings or self- authenticating government records, the Court will take judicial notice of the 27 Government’s Exhibits. See Dkt. # 18-1, 18-2. 1 foreclose federal tax liens on the properties, and (4) sell the properties. Dkt. # 1. 2 Defendants Elmer Buckardt, Karen Buckardt, and the D’Skell Agape Society 3 (collectively the “Defendants”) subsequently moved to dismiss this action for lack of 4 subject-matter jurisdiction. Dkt. # 12. The Government opposes the Motion. Dkt. # 18. 5 III. LEGAL STANDARD 6 Federal courts are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and may only hear cases 7 authorized by the Constitution or a statutory grant. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. 8 of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The burden of establishing subject-matter 9 jurisdiction rests upon the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction. Id. Once it is 10 determined that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court has no choice 11 but to dismiss the suit. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. 12 P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, 13 the court must dismiss the action.”). 14 IV. DISCUSSION 15 Defendants appear to assert three arguments in support of their two–page Motion 16 to Dismiss: (1) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, (2) the IRS 17 cannot assert any liens or levies against Defendants because the Tax Court previously 18 concluded that no statutory notices of deficiency or determination were filed against 19 Defendants, and (3) 26 U.S.C. §7608(a) deprives the Court of jurisdiction. 20 A. The Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over This Action 21 Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter because a Tax 22 Court decision dismissing Defendant Elmer Buckardt’s petition for lack of jurisdiction 23 applies in this action and precludes the Court from exercising jurisdiction. Dkt. # 12 at 2. 24 This argument is misplaced. 25 Original jurisdiction may be based on diversity or the existence of a federal 26 question, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. The Government alleges that the 27 jurisdictional basis for this lawsuit is federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. # 18 at 11. 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all 2 civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “A 3 case ‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or 4 ‘where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction 5 of federal law.’ ” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th 6 Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). 7 The Government points to four federal statutes which, it argues, confer jurisdiction 8 over this action: 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345, and 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and 7403. Dkt. # 9 18 at 11. The Court agrees. First, the Government’s Complaint asserts claims based on 10 Mr. Buckardt’s unpaid federal income tax assessments and penalties. Dkt. # 1. Under 28 11 U.S.C. § 1340, federal courts have “original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under 12 any Act of Congress providing for internal revenue.” Similarly, federal courts have 13 original jurisdiction over “all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the 14 United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1345. Here, Plaintiff is the United States Government, 15 accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1345. 16 In addition, 26 U.S.C. § 7402 grants federal district courts “jurisdiction to make 17 and issue in civil actions … such other orders and processes, and to render such 18 judgments and decrees as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the 19 internal revenue laws.” The Government in this case is seeking to reduce tax 20 assessments against Defendants to judgment and, as a result, jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. 21 § 7402 is proper. Finally, 26 U.S.C. § 7403 provides that the United States may file an 22 action in district court to enforce a tax lien against any property in which the taxpayer has 23 an interest. See 28 U.S.C. § 7403(a). Because the Government is seeking to enforce tax 24 liens by foreclosing on properties in which Defendants have an interest, the Court has 25 jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7403. In sum, there are multiple federal statutes 26 conferring subject matter jurisdiction over this action and Defendants’ arguments to the 27 contrary are completely without merit. United States v. Kollman, 774 F.3d 592, 594 (9th 1 Cir. 2014) (noting district court had jurisdiction over action brought by United States to 2 reduce tax assessments to judgment and foreclose tax liens under 25 U.S.C. § 7402 and 3 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345). 4 Separately, it appears that Defendants misunderstand the Tax Court’s holding. 5 The Tax Court has jurisdiction to review notices of deficiency and notices determination 6 under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6212 and 6213(a), and 26 U.S.C. §§ 6320 and 6330. In order for the 7 Tax Court to have jurisdiction to review a notice of deficiency, the taxpayer must file a 8 petition in Tax Court within ninety days after the notice of deficiency is mailed or 150 9 days if the notice is addressed to an individual outside the United States. 26 U.S.C. § 10 6213(a). Similarly, in order for the Tax Court to review notices of determination, the 11 taxpayer must file a timely petition for review within thirty days after the issuance of the 12 notice of determination. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6330(d)(1), 6320(c). Here, the Tax Court 13 concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because “no notice of deficiency and no notice of 14 determination was issued to [Mr. Buckardt] for tax years 2000 through and including 15 2015 that would permit [Mr. Buckardt] to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction.” Dkt. # 12-1 at 16 2. However, the statutes governing Tax Court jurisdiction (26 U.S.C. §§ 6213(a), 17 6320(d)(1), and 6330(c)), do not impact federal district court jurisdiction. Accordingly, 18 the Tax Court’s determination that it did not have jurisdiction is irrelevant to this Court’s 19 analysis of jurisdiction. 20 B. Factual Disputes Regarding Notices of Deficiency or Determination 21 Are Disingenuous and Misplaced 22 Defendants next argue that because the Tax Court previously held that there were 23 “NO statutory notices of deficiency and NO statutory notices of determination” filed 24 against Defendants for tax years 2000 through 2015, the IRS cannot assert any liens or 25 levies against defendants. Dkt. # 12 at 2 (emphasis in original). This argument is flawed 26 for two reasons. 27 First, Defendants misstate the Tax Court’s order. The Tax Court did not conclude 1 that the IRS never filed a notice of deficiency or notice of determination against 2 Defendants. Instead, the Tax Court concluded that there were no notices of deficiency or 3 determination filed that were sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Dkt. # 12-1 at 2 (emphasis 4 added). 5 Second, to the extent that Defendants are arguing that the Government’s 6 Complaint fails to state a claim under Fed. R Civ. P. 12(b)(6), that argument also fails. 7 Defendants are correct that a taxpayer can challenge the validity of a tax lien by 8 challenging the validity of a notice of deficiency for assessments based on a notice a 9 deficiency. Here, however, the Court finds that the Government’s Complaint alleges 10 sufficient facts to suggest that the IRS tax assessments were valid, and that Defendants 11 received timely notices of deficiency and determination for those tax periods in which 12 notice was required. Dkt. # 1 at ¶¶ 20, 28-30. This is further supported by the fact that 13 Mr. Buckardt filed several petitions in Tax Court contesting the IRS’ notices of 14 deficiency and determination. See Dkt. # 18-2, Exs. 16, 19-21, 24, Dkt. # 18-1, Ex. B. 15 As a result, Defendants’ argument that the IRS cannot assert any “liens or levies” against 16 them because no statutes of deficiency or determination were ever filed against them is 17 both unfounded and disingenuous. 18 C. 26 U.S.C. §7608(a) Does Not Preclude Federal Jurisdiction 19 Finally, Defendants appear to argue that the IRS cannot enforce laws regulating 20 income taxes under 26 U.S.C. §7608(a), a statute governing IRS examination and 21 inspection, because Subtitle A of §7608 only applies to laws regulating liquor, tobacco, 22 firearms, or commodities taxes under Subtitle E. Dkt. # 12 at 1. Defendants do not 23 explain, however, and the Court cannot decipher how 26 U.S.C. §7608(a) impacts federal 24 court jurisdiction over this action. As explained above, this Court has jurisdiction over 25 this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345, and 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and 7403. Section 26 7608(a), which regulates the IRS’ ability to perform inspections and examinations into 27 taxpayer liabilities, has no bearing on this Court’s jurisdiction. 1 V. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Dkt. # 12. 3 4 Dated this 31st day of October, 2019. 5 A 6

7 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 8 United States District Judge 9

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27