Fallen v. IRS Department of Treasury

MOTION for Summary Judgment

D. Md.February 24, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND DI'ONNA FALLEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________________) Case No. 8:16-cv-01578 UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The United States moves for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) on the grounds that there are no genuine disputes as to any material fact, and the United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the plaintiff’s claims for tax refunds. The United States is submitting a memorandum of law, a proposed order, and a proposed judgment in support of this motion. Date: February 24, 2017 DAVID A. HUBBERT Acting Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division /s/ Megan E. Hoffman-Logsdon MEGAN E. HOFFMAN-LOGSDON Trial Attorney, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 277, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 616-3342 Fax: (202) 514-6866Email: megan.e.hoffman-logsdon@usdoj.gov Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19 Filed 02/24/17 Page 1 of 2 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on February 24, 2017, I electronically filed the United States’ Answer to the Complaint with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. On February 24, 2017, I also caused this document to be served by first-class mail on the following: Plaintiff (pro se) Di’Onna Fallen 10482 Baltimore Avenue Beltsville, MD 20702 /s/ Megan E. Hoffman-Logsdon MEGAN E. HOFFMAN-LOGSDON Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19 Filed 02/24/17 Page 2 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND DI'ONNA FALLEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________________) Case No. PWG 16-1578 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The plaintiff filed a complaint claiming that she is entitled to tax refunds with respect to tax years 2005 and 2010 totaling $6,396.12, plus $1,000.00 in unspecified damages. But the plaintiff has not shown that she is entitled to any refunds. The plaintiff filed her requests for refund for both tax years in April 2013. The 2005 request for a refund of $4,129.00 is time- barred by statute. The 2010 request for a refund of $2,267.12 was timely made, but plaintiff has not shown that she overpaid her tax and is actually entitled to the refund she claims. Because the plaintiff has not shown that she overpaid her tax for the above years and is therefore entitled to the refunds she seeks, judgment should be entered in favor of the United States. Statement of Undisputed Material Facts 1. The plaintiff filed returns for the tax years 2005 through 2012, inclusive, in April 20131. Gov. Exhibit A, Page 2. 1 The plaintiff says in her Complaint that she filed her tax returns for tax years 2005 through 2013, inclusive, in April 2013. But the United States believes the plaintiff is Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-1 Filed 02/24/17 Page 1 of 5 2 2. For tax year 2005, the only payments the plaintiff made were through withholding taxes. She did not make any payments after April 15, 2006. Gov. Exhibit B. 3. On her 2010 tax return, plaintiff claimed $2,483.00 in educational credits in connection with the American Opportunity Tax Credit. Gov. Exhibit A, page 12, lines 49 and 662. Summary Judgment Standard A party is entitled to summary judgment when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A factual dispute should only preclude the entry of summary judgment if it would change the outcome of the litigation. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 247-248. When the moving party has shown that no genuine dispute of material fact exists, the non-moving party cannot simply show that there is some doubt in order to defeat the motion. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-587 (1986). Moreover, the "obligation of the nonmoving party is ‘particularly strong [as in this case] when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof.'" Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376, 1381 (4th Cir.1995), quoting Pachaly v. City of Lynchburg, 897 F.2d 723, 725 (4th Cir.1990); see also Compton v. United States, 334 F.2d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 1964) (explaining that in a tax refund suit, mistaken, as the plaintiff’s return for tax year 2013 would not have been due until April 15, 2014. 2 IRS Form 8863 is form used to calculate and claim the American Opportunity Credit. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8863.pdf. Plaintiff submitted calculations from Form 8863 on her 2010 tax return. Stmt. of Facts ¶ 3. Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-1 Filed 02/24/17 Page 2 of 5 3 the taxpayer bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of correctness given to a tax assessment). Argument 1. The Statute of Limitations Expired Before the Plaintiff Filed Her Refund Claim for 2005 A taxpayer must file a refund claim with the Service for a court to have jurisdiction over a refund suit. The refund claim must be filed in accordance with the requirements relating to such claims, one of which is the statute of limitations set out in 26 U.S.C. § 6511. See 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a), (b); United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. at 602; Webb v. United States, 66 F.3d at 693-694. Under section 6511, a refund claim must be filed with the Service within either three years from the date the tax return was filed or two years from the date the taxes were paid, whichever expires later. 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a), (b). The plaintiff’s refund claim for 2005 was untimely, regardless of whether the two or three year period is applied. The plaintiff filed her 2005 tax return in April 2013. Stmt. of Facts ¶ 1. She does not contend that she filed any claim for refund for 2005 before April 2013. The only payments she made for the 2005 tax year were through withholding taxes. Stmt of Facts ¶ 2. Payments made through withholding taxes are deemed to have been made on the 15th of the fourth month following the end of the tax year. 26 U.S.C. § 6513(b)(1). Here, the plaintiff’s payments for 2005 are deemed to have been made on April 15, 2006. See 26 U.S.C. § 6513(b)(1); Stmt. of Facts ¶ 2. Seven years later, the plaintiff filed her refund claim for 2005. Stmt. of Facts ¶ 1. Because the plaintiff filed her refund claim for 2005 long after the statute of limitations expired, her claim with respect to that year must be denied. Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-1 Filed 02/24/17 Page 3 of 5 4 II. The Plaintiff Has Not Shown That She Overpaid Her 2010 Tax and Is Due A Refund The plaintiff’s request for refund for 2010 was timely made. But she has not shown that she has overpaid her tax and is therefore entitled to a refund. In order to receive a refund for taxes paid, a plaintiff must show that she is actually entitled to a refund. Larchfield Corp. v. United States, 373 F.2d 159 (2nd Cir. 1966). The burden of proof is on the taxpayer to establish the correct amount of the refund due. King v. United States, 641 F.2d 253, 259 (5th Cir. 1981). The claim must be substantiated by something other than a bare assertion, tax returns, or self-serving statements. Mays v. US, 763 F.2d 1295 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Griffin v. United States, 588 F.2d 521, 530 (5th Cir. 1979). The plaintiff has not articulated the exact basis upon which she feels she is owed a refund of $2,267.12 for tax year 2010. However, plaintiff claimed $2,483.00 in educational credits on her 2010 tax return in connection with the American Opportunity Tax Credit. Stmt. Of Facts ¶ 3. In order to be eligible for the American Opportunity Credit, a taxpayer must 1) not have claimed the credit for more than three years previously; 2) have been enrolled in a degree-granting program; 3) carried at least one-half the normal full-time workload for his or her course of study; 4) not have finished the first four years of higher education at the beginning of the tax year for which credit is claimed; and 5) not have a felony drug conviction at the end of the tax year. See 26 U.S.C. § 25A(i). The plaintiff has not proved or even alleged that she meets the above requirements. In her response to the United States’ First Set of Interrogatories, when asked to describe the basis for her contention that she was entitled to an education tax credit, she wrote, “ To my understanding any time a person attend any school they are entitled to this education tax credit.” Gov. Exh. A. The plaintiff is mistaken. Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-1 Filed 02/24/17 Page 4 of 5 5 Furthermore, the plaintiff has put forward no evidence, either in her complaint or in her response to the United States’ interrogatories and, that she is owed a refund for any other reason. She has not shown that she is entitled a refund for the 2010 tax year, and her claim must be denied. For the foregoing reasons, the United States’ motion for summary judgment should be granted. Date: February 24, 2017 DAVID A. HUBBERT Acting Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division /s/ Megan E. Hoffman-Logsdon MEGAN E. HOFFMAN-LOGSDON Trial Attorney, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 277, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 616-3342 Fax: (202) 514-6866 Email: megan.e.hoffman-logsdon@usdoj.gov Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-1 Filed 02/24/17 Page 5 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND DI'ONNA FALLEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________________) Case No. 8:16-cv-01578 ORDER Having considered the United States’ motion for summary judgment, any opposition thereto, and the entire record of this proceeding, it is ORDERED that the United States’ motion is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that a judgment shall be entered in favor of the United States and against Di’Onna Fallen that she is not entitled to a tax refund with respect to the 2005 and 2010 tax years. Entered this ___________day of______________ , 2017. ________________________________ PAUL W. GRIMM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-2 Filed 02/24/17 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND DI'ONNA FALLEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________________) Case No. 8:16-cv-01578 JUDGMENT Judgment is rendered in favor of the United States and against Di’Onna Fallen that she is not entitled to a tax refund with respect to the 2005 and 2010 tax years. Entered this ________________ day of ____________ 2017. ________________________________ PAUL W. GRIMM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-3 Filed 02/24/17 Page 1 of 1 1 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 1 of 22 2 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 2 of 22 3 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 3 of 22 4 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 4 of 22 5 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 5 of 22 6 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 6 of 22 7 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 7 of 22 8 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 8 of 22 9 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 9 of 22 10 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 10 of 22 11 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 11 of 22 12 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 12 of 22 13 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 13 of 22 14 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 14 of 22 15 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 15 of 22 16 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 16 of 22 17 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 17 of 22 18 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 18 of 22 19 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 19 of 22 20 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 20 of 22 21 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 21 of 22 22 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-4 Filed 02/24/17 Page 22 of 22 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-5 Filed 02/24/17 Page 1 of 3 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-5 Filed 02/24/17 Page 2 of 3 Case 8:16-cv-01578-PWG Document 19-5 Filed 02/24/17 Page 3 of 3