United States v. Jackson

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri
DecidedJanuary 30, 2019
Docket3:16-cv-05096
StatusUnknown

This text of United States v. Jackson (United States v. Jackson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Jackson, (W.D. Mo. 2019).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 3:16-CV-05096-BCW ) WILLIAM PHILLIP JACKSON, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT The Court held a jury trial in the above-captioned matter beginning on July 23, 2018. Plaintiff the United States of America appeared through counsel Russell J. Edelstein and Casey S. Smith. Defendant William Phillip Jackson (“Phil Jackson”) appeared through counsel William J. Fleischaker. Before trial, the Court granted partial summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor as follows: (1) on Count I, Phil Jackson’s taxable income totaled $946,984.00, and Phil Jackson is liable for statutory penalties for 1998 through 2002; and (2) on Counts II, III, IV, and V, Phil Jackson and Sharon Jackson as husband and wife are the legal and equitable owners of the four subject properties which are encumbered by federal tax liens. At trial, the Court granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of Plaintiff and against Phil Jackson with respect to Phil Jackson’s assertion of charitable contributions in an amount of $477,500.00. Further, the Court entered judgment consistent with the jury verdict that reflects the following: (a) Phil Jackson did not establish that for tax years 2000, 2001, and 2002, he did not receive any portion of the gross income earned by Jackson Brothers Tire; and (b) Phil Jackson did not establish that any portion of the gross income earned by Jackson Brothers Tire belonged to his sons or anyone else. (Doc. #145). Based on the parties’ agreement that the remaining issues in this case are amenable to resolution by the Court, the parties submitted post-trial briefing. (Docs. #149, #156, & #158). The Court, having considered the parties’ arguments, the applicable law, and the record,

finds as follows. A. FINAL JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AGAINST PHIL JACKSON IN A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $2,396,800.47, PLUS STATUTORY INTEREST ACCRUING SINCE AUGUST 1, 2018.

Plaintiff asserts the Court should reduce to judgment Phil Jackson’s federal income tax liability totaling $2,396,800.47 as assessed by the IRS, plus statutory interest accruing since August 1, 2018. This amount represents the Court and jury findings for Phil Jackson’s taxable income for 1998 through 2002, with penalties and interest up to August 1, 2018. Defendants do not challenge Plaintiff’s proposed judgment amount. The IRS’s estimate of taxable income is entitled to a presumption of correctness, as long as the “method for assessment is reasonable and logical.” Dodge v. Comm’r of Internal Rev., 981 F.2d 350, 353 (8th Cir. 1993); United States v. Stonehill, 702 F.2d 1288, 1294 (9th Cir. 1983), cert denied, 465 U.S. 1079 (1984); United States v. Fior D’Italia, Inc., 536 U.S. 238, 243, 122 S. Ct. 2117, 2122, 153 L. Ed. 2d 280 (2002); McGraw v. Comm’r, 384 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir. 2004). Based on the presumption of correctness that accompanies the IRS’s assessment of Phil Jackson’s income tax liability for 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, the Court’s previous rulings, and the jury verdict, the Court enters final judgment on Count I against Phil Jackson in an amount of $2,396,800.47, plus statutory interest accruing since August 1, 2018. This total includes the partial judgment previously entered against Phil Jackson. (Doc. #113). B. FEDERAL TAX LIENS ENCUMBERING PROPERTIES 1, 2, 3, AND 4 ARE SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE AND SALE.

With respect to Counts II, III, IV, and V, Plaintiff asserts the Court should foreclose under 26 U.S.C. § 7403 on the federal tax liens on four properties held jointly by Phil Jackson and his wife Sharon Jackson, order the sale of the four properties identified, and distribute the proceeds of the sales in the following order: (1) to the IRS Property Appraisal and Liquidation Specialists; (2) to Newton County for payment of any unpaid property taxes; (3) one-half of the remaining proceeds to Sharon Jackson to account for her one-half interest in the properties; (4) one-half of the remaining proceeds to satisfy the judgment amount in Count I against Phil Jackson; and (5) any remaining amounts to Phil Jackson. Defendants note they have not located any legal authority to dispute the IRS’s power to enforce its federal tax liens through foreclosure and sale. This Court found previously that Phil Jackson and Sharon Jackson are the legal and equitable owners of four properties, specifically identified and described in Counts II, III, IV, and V (“the Properties”). The Court further found that each of the Properties are encumbered by federal tax liens, creating in Plaintiff superior interests in each of the Properties. Title 26 U.S.C. § 7403 “is one of a number of distinct enforcement tools available to the United States for the collection of delinquent taxes.” United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 682- (1983). “The Government may, for example, simply sue for the unpaid amount, and, on getting a judgment, exercise the usual rights of a judgment creditor.” Id. (citing 26 U.S.C. §§ 6205(a), 7401, 7402(a)).

“Section 7403(a) provides, not only that the Government may ‘enforce its lien,’ but also that it may seek to ‘subject any proper, of whatever nature, of the delinquent, or in which he has any right, title, or interest, to the payment of such tax or liability.” Rodgers, 461 U.S. at 692. “[S]ection 7403(c) provides that the district court should ‘determine the merits of all claims to and liens upon the property, and, in all cases where a claim or interest of the United States therein is established, may decree a sale of such property . . . and a distribution of the proceeds of such sale according to the findings of the court in respect to the interests of the parties and of the United States.’” Id. at 693. The statute is properly construed “to contemplate, not merely the sale of the delinquent taxpayer’s own interest, but the sale of the entire property . . . and the recognition of

third-party interests through the mechanism of judicial valuation and distribution.” Id. at 694. This construction “is consistent with the policy inherent in the tax statutes in favor of the prompt and certain collection of delinquent taxes.” Id. “[A]lthough the definition of underlying property interests is left to state law, the consequences that attach to those interests is a matter left to federal law.” Id. at 683 (citing United States v. Mitchell, 403 U.S. 190 (1971)). In Missouri, “[w]here two persons who are husband and wife become joint owners of personal property a presumption arises that they hold the property as tenants by the entirety. The presumption is that each spouse owns an undivided interest in the whole of the property.” Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Shackelford, 591 S.W.2d

210, 213 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). “[F]ederal tax liens may attach to property that cannot be unilaterally alienated.” United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274, 284 (2002). “[T]he federal tax lien . . .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Mitchell
403 U.S. 190 (Supreme Court, 1971)
United States v. Rodgers
461 U.S. 677 (Supreme Court, 1983)
United States v. Craft
535 U.S. 274 (Supreme Court, 2002)
United States v. Fior D'Italia, Inc.
536 U.S. 238 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Joseph P. McGraw v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
384 F.3d 965 (Eighth Circuit, 2004)
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Shackelford
591 S.W.2d 210 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1979)
United States v. Stonehill
702 F.2d 1288 (Ninth Circuit, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Jackson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jackson-mowd-2019.