Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Richter

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

December 10, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
MARK E. RICHTER, et al., Defendants.

          Dlott, J

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

         This matter is before the Court on plaintiff United States of America's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 58). Defendants Mark and Sally Richter have not filed a response in opposition.

         I. Summary Judgment Standard

         A motion for summary judgment should be granted if the evidence submitted to the Court demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), a grant of summary judgment is proper if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Satterfield v. Tennessee, 295 F.3d 611, 615 (6th Cir. 2002). The Court must evaluate the evidence, and all inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Satterfield, 295 F.3d at 615; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Little Caesar Enters., Inc. v. OPPC, LLC, 219 F.3d 547, 551 (6th Cir. 2000).

         The trial judge's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter, but to determine whether there is a genuine factual issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. The trial court need not search the entire record for material issues of fact, Street v. J. C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479-80 (6th Cir. 1989), but must determine "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52.

         The moving party has the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to an essential element of the non-moving party's case. Hedrick v. W. Reserve Care Sys., 355 F.3d 444, 451 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323). The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to "come forward with 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial'” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (emphasis in original). To meet that burden, the non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Id., at 586. If, after an appropriate time for discovery, the opposing party is unable to demonstrate a prima facie case, summary judgment is warranted. Street, 886 F.2d at 1478 (citing Celotex and Anderson). "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no 'genuine issue for trial.'" Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587.

         II. Undisputed Facts

         The United States presents the following proposed undisputed facts and accompanying evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment, which, as noted above, has not been opposed by defendants.[1]

         1. On the following dates, a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States made the following assessments of federal income taxes and penalties owed by Mark E. Richter and Sally S. Richter, for the following taxable years, in the following amounts, which, after applying payments and credits, have the following balances due, with interests, accruals, and costs, as of May 29, 2019:

Period Ending

Assessment Type

Assessment Date

Assessment Amount

Balance Due as of May 29, 2019

12/31/2006 Tax reported 5/28/2007 $32,829.00 $31,032.93
Estimated Tax Penalty 5/28/2007 $690.12
Failure to Pay Penalty 5/28/2007 $149.58
Failure to Pay Tax Penalty 11/29/2010 $3,589.92
12/31/2007 Tax reported 2/16/2009 $19,214.00 $43,917.06
Estimated Tax Penalty 2/16/2009 $874.49
Late Filing Penalty 2/16/2009 $4,323.15
Failure to Pay Penalty 2/16/2009 $1,056.77
Failure to Pay Tax Penalty 11/29/2010 $2,017.47
Failure to Pay Tax Penalty 11/26/2012 $576.42
12/31/2010 Tax reported 4/13/2015 $37,359.00 $59,804.52
Estimated Tax Penalty 4/13/2015 $525.05
Late Filing Penalty 4/13/2015 $6,875.77
Failure to Pay Tax Penalty 4/13/2015 $7,334.16
Failure to Pay Tax Penalty 10/17/2016 $2,613.93
12/31/2011 Tax reported 4/13/2015 $34,319.00 $63,364.05
Estimated Tax Penalty 4/13/2015 $659.64
Late Filing Penalty 4/13/2015 $7,496.77
Failure to Pay Penalty 4/13/2015 $5,997.42
Failure to Pay

Tax Penalty

10/17/2016 $2,332.33
12/31/2012 Tax reported 4/27/2015 $34,943.00 $62,771.00
Estimated Tax Penalty 4/27/2015 $608.55
Late Filing Penalty 4/27/2015 $7,637.17
Failure to Pay Penalty 4/27/2015 $4,242.88
Failure to Pay Penalty 10/17/2016 $4,242.87
12/31/2014 Tax reported 12/28/2015 $28,511.00 $14,787.36
Failure to Pay

Penalty

12/28/2015 $1,027.99
12/31/2015 Tax (reported) 12/12/2016 $6,659.00 $62,467.61
Late Filing Penalty 12/12/2016 $625.67
Failure to Pay Penalty 12/12/2016 $76.39
Additional Tax Assessed 6/25/2018 $33,468.00
Accuracy Penalty 6/25/2018 $6,693.60
Late Filing Penalty 6/25/2018 $9,649.83
Total


$338,114.53

(See Exh.1, Doc. 57-1, Declaration of Stanley Harris, IRS Revenue Officer in Cincinnati, Ohio; Exhs. 2-8, Docs. 57-2, 57-3, 57-4, 57-5, 57-6, 57-7, 57-8, Certificates of Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified Matters).

         2. All of the above tax amounts assessed were as reported on the returns except for the additional assessment for year 2015, which was a deficiency proposed after an examination of the return that was assessed after the taxpayers did not petition the Tax Court. (See Exhs. 2-8, Docs. 57-2, 57-3, 57-4, 57-5, 57-6, 57-7, 57-8).

         3. Notices of the liabilities described in paragraph 1, above, and demands for payment, were issued to Mark E. Richter and Sally S. Richter in accordance with the law. (See Entries for Statutory Notice of Balance Due, Doc. 57-2 at PAGEID #163-64; Doc. 57-3 at PAGEID #170-71; Doc. 57-4 at PAGEID #177; Doc. 57-5 at PAGEID #182; Doc. 57-6 at PAGEID #187; Doc. 57-7 at PAGEID #192; Doc. 57-8 at PAGEID #197-98).

         4. Despite such notices and demands for payment, Mark E. Richter and Sally S. Richter have failed, neglected, or refused to fully pay the liabilities described in paragraph 1, above, and after the application of all abatements, payments, credits, accruals, and costs, they remain liable to the United States in the amount of $338, 114.53, plus statutory additions from and after May 29, 2019, including interest pursuant to 26 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.