US v. Woodruff

2014 DNH 039
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire
DecidedFebruary 26, 2014
Docket13-CV-006-LM
StatusPublished

This text of 2014 DNH 039 (US v. Woodruff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
US v. Woodruff, 2014 DNH 039 (D.N.H. 2014).

Opinion

US v. Woodruff 13-CV-006-LM 2/26/14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Civil No. 13-CV-006-LM Opinion No. 2014 DNH 039 Robert P. Woodruff (individually) and d/b/a Arrow Painting, and Patricia Woodruff

O R D E R

The United States of America ("the United States" or "the

government") has sued to reduce to judgment unpaid federal tax

assessments against Robert Woodruff (Count I ) , and to enforce

tax liens against all of Woodruff s property, including real

property located at 65 Valley Street, Keene, New Hampshire

(Count II). Before the court is the government's motion for

summary judgment. Woodruff has not objected. For the reasons

that follow, I grant the government's motion.

The Legal Standard

"Summary judgment is warranted where ^there is no genuine

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.'" McGair v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co.

of Fla., 693 F.3d 94, 99 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); citing Rosciti v. Ins. Co. of Penn., 659 F.3d 92, 96

(1st Cir. 2011)). "In determining whether a genuine issue of

material fact exists, [the court] construe[s] the evidence in

the light most favorable to the non-moving party and make[s] all

reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Markel Am. Ins.

Co. v. Diaz-Santiago, 674 F.3d 21, 30 (1st Cir. 2011) (citing

Flowers v. Fiore, 359 F.3d 24, 29 (1st Cir. 2004)).

Discussion

Woodruff did not respond to a set of requests for

admissions propounded by the government, nor did he object to

the government's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the

facts upon which the court relies in the following discussion

are either admitted, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3), or deemed

admitted, see LR 56.1(b).

With regard to the claim stated in Count I, Woodruff has

admitted that: (1) he failed to fully pay his federal income-tax

liabilities for the years ending December 31, 1999, 2000, 2001,

2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010; (2) he failed to

fully pay his federal employment-tax liabilities for the

quarters ending December 31, 2002, June 30, 2008, December 31,

2 008, June 30, 2 009, September 30, 2 009, and December 31, 2 009;

(3) assessments were made against Woodruff by a delegate of the

2 Secretary of the Treasury for unpaid federal income taxes,

unpaid federal employment taxes, penalties, and interest; (4) as

of December 15, 2013, the balance due on the assessments related

to federal income taxes was $132,136.11; and (5) as of that same

date, the balance due on the assessments related to federal

employment taxes was $14,892.64.

With regard to the government's request, in Count II, for

enforcement of tax liens on the real property located at 65

Valley Street, Woodruff has admitted that: (1) he acquired the

property in August of 1990; and (2) in February of 2012, he

conveyed it, by quitclaim deed, to himself and Patricia

Woodruff, as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. In

accordance with 26 U.S.C § 6323(f), delegates of the Secretary

of the Treasury filed Notices of Federal Tax Liens against 65

Valley Street on nine occasions between November of 2005 and

January of 2012. Several of those Notices were refiled, none

later than January of 2012.

Based upon the foregoing, the United States seeks the

following relief: (1) "a judgment against Woodruff in the amount

of [$147,028.75], plus interest and other statutory additions

from January 1, 2 013," Compl. (doc. no. 1) 9; (2) a judgment

that its tax liens against 65 Valley Street are valid; (3) an

3 order stating that it may enforce those liens through a judicial

sale; and (4) its costs of litigation.

A. Count I

Count I is the government's request for a money judgment

against Woodruff. "The district courts of the United States at

the instance of the United States shall have such jurisdiction

. . . to render such judgments and decrees as may be necessary

or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue

laws." 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a). As Judge Conner has explained:

If a taxpayer is liable to the IRS, the Government may proceed in district court to obtain a judgment for the amount assessed against the taxpayer. 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a). "It is well established that the IRS's tax calculations (including calculations of interest and penalties) are presumptively valid and create a prima facie case of liability, such that the Government is ^entitled to have the assessment reduced to judgment unless the taxpayer overcomes the presumption by the IRS that the assessment is correct.'" United States v. Chrein, 368 F. Supp. 2d 278, 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing Chariot Plastics, Inc. v. United States, 28 F. Supp. 2d 874, 881 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)). The burden is on the defendant to prove the invalidity of the tax assessment. Pizzarello v. United States, 408 F.2d 579, 583 (2d Cir. 1969); Chrein, 368 F. Supp. 2d at 282.

United States v. Sweeny, 418 F. Supp. 2d 492, 496 (S.D.N.Y.

2 006) ; see also United States v. LaBombard, 107 F. Supp. 2d 57,

58 (D. Mass. 2000). Based upon the foregoing, and the various

facts that Woodruff has admitted, the United States is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law on Count I of its complaint.

4 B. Count II

Count II is the government's request for enforcement of its

liens against 65 Valley Street. That request is based upon the

following provision of the Internal Revenue Code:

In any case where there has been a refusal or neglect to pay any tax, or to discharge any liability in respect thereof . . . the Attorney General or his delegate, at the request of the Secretary, may direct a civil action to be filed in a district court of the United States to enforce the lien of the United States under this title with respect to such tax or liability or to subject any property, of whatever nature, of the delinquent, or in which he has any right, title, or interest, to the payment of such tax or liability.

26 U.S.C. § 7403(a) .

Judge Barbadoro has explained the circumstances under which

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

Related

Flowers v. Fiore
359 F.3d 24 (First Circuit, 2004)
Pizzarello v. United States
408 F.2d 579 (Second Circuit, 1969)
ROSCITI v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania
659 F.3d 92 (First Circuit, 2011)
Markel American Insurance v. Díaz-Santiago
674 F.3d 21 (First Circuit, 2012)
McGair v. American Bankers Insurance
693 F.3d 94 (First Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Sweeny
418 F. Supp. 2d 492 (S.D. New York, 2006)
United States v. LaBombard
107 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D. Massachusetts, 2000)
United States v. Chrein
368 F. Supp. 2d 278 (S.D. New York, 2005)
Chariot Plastics, Inc. v. United States
28 F. Supp. 2d 874 (S.D. New York, 1998)
United States v. Tempelman
111 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D. New Hampshire, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2014 DNH 039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-v-woodruff-nhd-2014.