Opinion
Civil Action 20-2490
07-13-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. LORIE B. SHARPE, Defendant.
OPINION
Slomsky, J.
I. INTRODUCTION
This action arises out of allegations by Plaintiff United States of America (the “Government”) against Defendant Lorie Sharpe (“Defendant”). More specifically, the Government filed a Complaint on May 27, 2020 against Defendant asserting, and seeking to recover, the following:
a) [R]ecover erroneous refunds made to Lorie B. Sharpe . . . for the 2014 and 2015 taxable years (“Count I”);
b) [C]ollect the civil penalty assessments made against Lorie Sharpe under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 for filing frivolous returns for the 2012 through 2016 taxable years (“Count II”); and
c) [I]n the alternative, with respect to the claims for erroneous refunds set forth in Count I, collect the tax and additions to tax assessed against Lorie Sharpe for the 2014 and 2015 taxable years; and collect the tax and additions to tax assessed against Lorie Sharpe for the 2013 taxable year (“Count III”).(Doc. No. 1 at 1.)
On January 18, 2022, the Government filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in this case. (Doc. No. 30.) As of the date of this Opinion, Defendant has not filed a response in opposition to the Government's Motion. In fact, Defendant has not participated in this case since March 1, 2021.
However, for reasons set forth below, the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 30) will be granted.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
This case involves claims by the Government that Defendant Lori Sharpe overstated her income and, at times, interest on her personal tax returns (Form 1040) for the years 2012 to 2016, and also included on the return false information about the amount withheld from her income and interest for taxes due. In addition, the Government claims that based upon refunds requested on her tax returns for the years 2013 to 2015, erroneous refunds of roughly $450,000 were made to Defendant by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). In 2015, the Government discovered that it made the refunds to Defendant that she was not entitled to receive. After reviewing her tax returns it then assessed a penalty of $5,000 for each year from 2012 to 2016, except for 2015 in which the penalty assessed was $10,000 because for that year she filed two erroneous returns, an original return and then an amended one. For the tax year 2012, although she filed an amended return, her first return reported correct amounts. The $5,000 penalty was only imposed for the false 2012 amended return she had filed. For purposes of summary judgment, more specific facts as established by the Government as to what occurred in each relevant tax year follows.
1. 2012 Tax Year
On her original 2012 income tax return, Defendant reported wages of $5,783 and no taxable interest. (Ex. 1 at 17, 1 lines 7, 8a.) She also reported that $508 had been withheld. (Id. at 2 line 36.) Further, she reported a total income tax due of $0. (Id. at 2 line 28.) Then, about a year and a half later, Defendant filed an amended 2012 income tax return, along with several Forms 1 OID. (Ex. 6 at 2, 20-21.) On her amended return, Defendant reported $20,563 of additional taxable interest and $20,250 in other income, denoted as “cancelled debt income.” (Ex. 6 at 3 lines 8a, 21.) She also reported that an additional $20,445 of income taxes had been withheld. (Id. at 4 line 62.) The total income tax she now reported as due was $2,584 and a refund owed of $18,861. (Id. at 4 lines 61, 73.) Despite this information as reported on the amended return, the W-2 from Defendant's employers shows that only $507 of income taxes had been withheld. (See Ex. 16 at 1-3.) No financial institutions reported to the IRS that Defendant had earned any interest income. (See Ex. 16.) In March 2015, the IRS, realizing the fictitious nature of the amended income tax return, assessed a civil penalty of $5,000 against Defendant under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 for filing a frivolous return. (Ex. 11 at 1.) The $5,000 penalty, plus interest, is the only amount the Government seeks to collect for the taxable year 2012.
“OID” is short for original issue discount. The Eleventh Circuit has explained a 1099-OID Form as:
[A]n income-reporting document normally issued by financial institutions to purchasers of debt instruments such as bonds. The purchaser buys the debt instrument from the financial institution at a price discounted from the instrument's value at maturity. The difference in purchase price and value at maturity is taxable income that must be amortized and reported by the taxpayer incrementally over the life of the loan.United States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1298 n.1 (11th Cir. 2016). False Form 1099-OIDs are a popular fraud technique. See Internal Revenue Services, IRS Releases the Dirty Dozen Tax Scams for 2013, available at https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsroom/irs-releases-the-dirty-dozen-tax-scams-for-2013 (describing how a fake information return, such as a Form 1099-OID, is often filed by perpetrators to justify a false refund claim on a corresponding tax return).
26 U.S.C. § 6702 provides in relevant part as follows:
A person shall pay a penalty of $5,000 if such person files what purports to be a return of a tax imposed by this title but which does not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged, or contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect, and [this] conduct . . . is based on a position which the Secretary has identified as frivolous under subsection (c), or reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws.26 U.S.C. §6702(a).
2. 2013 Tax Year
On her 2013 income tax return, Defendant reported wages of $23,143, taxable interest of $34,131, and no other income apart from social security benefits. (Ex. 2 at 1-2 lines 7, 8a, and 21.) She also reported that $34,976 in income taxes had been withheld. (Id. at 3 line 62.) Further, she reported an income tax due of $4,061 and a refund owed of $31,915. (Id. lines 61, 74a.) In March 2014, based on this information, a delegate of the Secretary of Treasury (“a delegate”) assessed against Defendant the income tax due of $4,061. The IRS also erroneously issued Defendant the refund of $31,915. (Ex. 8 at 2.) However, the W-2 from Defendant's employer shows that only $845 of income tax had been withheld. (Ex. 17 at 1). Moreover, the IRS received no report from any financial institutions that Defendant had earned any interest income. (See Id. at 1-2.) In March 2017, in response to her fictitious 2013 income tax return, a delegate assessed an additional tax of $34,131 against Defendant under 26 U.S.C. § 6201(a)(3). (Ex. 8 at 2.) In March 2018, also in response to her fictitious 2013 income tax return, a delegate imposed on Defendant a civil penalty of $5,000 under 26 U.S.C. § 6702. (Ex. 12 at 1.)
26 U.S.C. § 6201(a)(3) provides in relevant part as follows:
If on any return or claim for refund of income taxes . . . there is an overstatement of the credit for income tax withheld at the source, or of the amount paid as estimated income tax, the amount so overstated which is allowed against the tax shown on the return or which is allowed as a credit or refund may be assessed by the Secretary in the same manner as in the case of a mathematical or clerical error appearing upon the return . . .26. U.S.C. § 6201(a)(3).
3. 2014 Tax Year
In April 2015, Defendant filed her 2014 income tax return on which she reported wages of $2,288, a taxable interest of $57,207, and the same amount in other income, excluding social security benefits. (Ex. 9 at 1; Ex. 3 at 1 lines 7, 8a, 20, 21.) Additionally, she reported that income taxes had been withheld in the amount of $51,548 based on eleven Forms 1099-OID. (Id. at 3, line 64.) (See also id. at 20 (identifying TD Bank, Philadelphia Traffic Court, the Court of Common Pleas, and Raymond Rosen Associates as the payers.)) Further, she reported $19,184 as total income tax due and a requested refund of $32,364. (Ex. 3 at 3 lines 63, 76a.) Contrary to this information, the W-2 from Defendant's employers reported that only $454 in income taxes had been withheld. (See Ex. 18 at 1-3). No financial institutions reported to the IRS that Defendant had earned any interest income. (See Ex. 18.) Further, none of the third parties listed on the Forms 1099-OID reported information consistent with the amount reported by Defendant. (Compare Ex. 3 at 20 with Ex. 18.) In May 2015, in response to her fictitious 2014 income tax return, the IRS issued to Defendant a reduced refund of $27,345.89. (Ex. 9 at 2.) In January 2018, a delegate assessed a civil penalty of $5,000 against Defendant for filing a frivolous personal tax return for 2014. (Ex. 13 at 1.)
4. 2015 Tax Year
Next, in April 2016, Defendant filed her 2015 income tax return in which she reported wages of $533, taxable interest of $1,716,513, and other income of $1,672,980, excluding social security benefits. (Ex. 10 at 1; Ex. 4 at 1 lines 7, 8a, and 21.) She further reported that $1,544,862 in federal income taxes had been withheld. (Ex. 4 at 3 line 64.) Additionally, she reported $1,119,404 of total income tax due with a total refund owed of $425,458. (Id. lines 63, 75.) However, the information on the W-2 from Defendant's employer reported that $0 in income taxes had been withheld. (Ex. 19 at 1.) No financial institutions reported to the IRS that Defendant had earned any interest income. (See Ex. 19.) Further, no independent reporting of the $1.6 million in other income claimed on her return was sent to the IRS. (Id.) In April 2016, in response to her fictitious 2015 income tax return, the IRS issued Defendant a refund of $425,458. (Ex. 10 at 2; Ex. 24 at 3.) Then, in July 2017, over a year after Defendant received this refund, she submitted an amended 2015 income tax return on which she reported other income as $0 and an additional refund owed of $582,094. (Ex. 7 at 2; id. at 3 line 21; id. at 1 line 22.) This refund was not paid. In June 2017 and January 2018, a delegate imposed two civil penalties of $5,000 against Defendant for the filing of her erroneous 2015 income tax return and erroneous amended 2015 income tax return. (Ex. 14.)
5. 2016 Tax Year
Finally, in April 2017, Defendant filed her 2016 income tax return. (Ex. 5 at 33.) In that return, she reported no wages, a taxable interest of $658,140, and other income of $658,125, excluding social security benefits. (Id. at 1 lines 7, 8a, 21.) She further reported withholdings of $592,312. (Id. at 3 line 64.) Defendant also reported a total income tax of $497,007 due and a total refund owed of $113,305. (Id. at lines 63, 76a.) However, no employer reported any income tax withholding to the IRS. (Ex. 20.) Further, the only financial institution that reported interest income to the IRS noted the amount was $15. (Id.) Additionally, there has been no independent substantiation of the $658,125 of other income that Defendant reported on her return. (Id.) In July 2017, in response to her fictitious 2016 income tax return, a delegate assessed a civil penalty of $5,000 against Defendant under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 for filing a frivolous return. (Ex. 15.)
6. Total Amounts Due and Owing to the Internal Revenue Service
In total, due to the information provided on the false tax returns for 2012 to 2016 and the refunds made to Defendant, she owes the United States $554,565.50 plus statutory additions and interest. Of this amount, Defendant owes $27,345.89 plus interest and other additions from May 28, 2015 for the erroneous refund the IRS made to her for the 2014 taxable year (Count I). She owes $425,458 plus interest and other additions from April 13, 2016 for the erroneous refund the IRS issued to her for the 2015 taxable year (Count I). As of January 17, 2022, Defendant owes the United States $36,751.10 for the frivolous filing penalties assessed against her for the 2012 to 2016 tax years plus statutory additions to tax, including interest, accruing after that date (Count II). (Muller Decl. at 6 ¶ 31.) Finally, as of January 17, 2022, Defendant owes the United States $65,010.51 in income taxes for the year 2013, plus statutory additions to the tax, including interest, accruing after that date (Count III). (Muller Decl. at 4 ¶ 20.)
B. Procedural Background
Upon receiving notice of the Government's Complaint filed against her, Defendant filed an Answer on August 17, 2020. (Doc. No. 2.) Defendant then filed her first Motion to Dismiss on February 4, 2021. (Doc. No. 7.) Following this filing, the Government filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No 10.) Thereafter, Defendant filed a second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) and the Government filed a second Response (Doc. No. 12). This Court denied both Motions to Dismiss in an Opinion and Order dated September 29, 2021. (Doc. No. 25.)
On September 27, 2021, the Government filed a Motion to Compel which was granted by this Court on November 8, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 23, 27.) In this Motion, the Government requested that Defendant answer the Government's First and Second Set of Interrogatories and provide the documents outlined in the Government's First and Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents. (Doc. No. 23.) As of the date of this Opinion, Defendant has failed to comply with the Court's Order on the Motion to Compel. (Doc. No. 30-2 at 7 ¶ 31.) Thereafter, the Government filed the Motion for Summary Judgment, which, as noted above, has not been opposed.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Granting summary judgment is an extraordinary remedy. Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that 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). In reaching this decision, the court must determine whether “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits show there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Favata v. Seidel, 511 Fed.Appx. 155, 158 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Azur v. Chase Bank, USA, Nat'l Ass'n, 601 F.3d 212, 216 (3d Cir. 2010)). A disputed issue is “genuine” only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party. Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 423 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). For a fact to be considered “material,” it “must have the potential to alter the outcome of the case.” Favata, 511 Fed.Appx. at 158. Once the proponent of summary judgment “points to evidence demonstrating no issue of material fact exists, the non-moving party has the duty to set forth specific facts showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists and that a reasonable factfinder could rule in its favor.” Id. (quoting Azur, 601 F.3d at 216).
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, “[t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Chambers ex rel. Chambers v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia Bd. of Educ., 587 F.3d 176, 181 (3d Cir. 2009)). The Court's task is not to resolve disputed issues of fact, but to determine whether there exist any factual issues to be tried. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-249. Whenever a factual issue arises which cannot be resolved without a credibility determination, at this stage the Court must credit the nonmoving party's evidence over that presented by the moving party. Id. at 255. If there is no factual issue, and if only one reasonable conclusion could arise from the record regarding the potential outcome under the governing law, summary judgment must be awarded in favor of the moving party. Id. at 250.
Relevant to the instant Motion, every motion for summary judgment that is not responded to may be granted as uncontested in accordance with Eastern District of Pennsylvania Local Rule 7.1. This rule provides in relevant part:
Every motion not certified as uncontested, or not governed by Local Civil Rule 26.1(g), shall be accompanied by a brief containing a concise statement of the legal contentions and authorities relied upon in support of the motion. Unless the Court directs otherwise, any party opposing the motion shall serve a brief in opposition together with such answer or other response that may be appropriate, with fourteen (14) days after service of the motion and supporting brief. In the absence of timely response, the motion may be granted as uncontested except as provided under Fed.R.Civ.P 56. The Court may require or permit briefs or submissions if the Court deems them necessary.LOCAL R. CIV. P 7.1(c).
IV. ANALYSIS
As stated previously, Defendant has failed to respond to the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment. While a Motion for Summary Judgment may not be granted as uncontested, the facts in the record are enough to show that in this case there is no genuine dispute of material fact regarding Defendant's liability to the Government for the amounts requested in the Complaint. Thus, the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted on each of the three counts in the Complaint. (See Doc. No. 1.) Each count will be discussed in turn.
A. As requested in Count I, the Government is entitled to recover the refunds it erroneously issued to Defendant in response to her fictitious filings for the 2014 and 2015 tax years.
There is no genuine dispute of material facts that the Government is entitled to recover the refunds it erroneously issued to Defendant for the 2014 and 2015 tax years under Section 7405 of the Internal Revenue Code. 26 U.S.C. § 7405; (Doc. No. 30-1 at 6.) This section provides that “any portion of a tax imposed by this title which has been erroneously refunded . . . may be recovered by civil action brought in the name of the United States.” 26 U.S.C. § 7405(b). To prevail on this claim, the Government must establish: (1) a refund was made to the taxpayer; (2) the amount of the refund; (3) that the United States' recovery action was timely brought; and (4) that the taxpayer was not entitled to the refund which the government seeks to recover. United States v. Phila. Marine Trade Ass'n/Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n Vacation Fund, 471 F.Supp.2d 518, 524 (E.D. Pa. 2007).
Here, the record establishes that the Government has proved each of the four elements. First, the IRS issued Defendant refunds on May 28, 2015 and April 13, 2016 for the 2014 and 2015 tax years, respectively. (Ex. 9 at 2; Ex. 10 at 2.) Second, these refunds were made in the amount of $27,345.89 for the 2014 tax year and $425,458 for the 2015 tax year. (Id.) Third, because the Government filed its Complaint on May 27, 2020 for the erroneous refunds the IRS issued to Defendant on May 28, 2015 and April 13, 2016, this action was timely brought. (See Doc. No. 1; Ex. 9 at 2; Ex. 10 at 2.) See also 26 U.S.C. § 6532(b) (allowing the United States to bring a suit for the recovery of an erroneous refund if the claim is brought “within 2 years after the making of such refund, except that such suit may be brought at any time within 5 years from the making of the refund if it appears that any part of the refund was induced by fraud or misrepresentation of a material fact”). Finally, it is evident that Defendant was not entitled to these refunds because the W-2 information reported by Defendant's employers indicates that she greatly inflated the amount of income taxes withheld and interest income claimed during the 2014 and 2015 tax years. (Ex. 18; Ex. 19.) For instance, on her 2015 income tax return, Defendant indicated that $1,544,862 of income taxes had been withheld while the W-2 provided by her employer reported that $0 in income taxes had been withheld. (Ex. 4 at 3 line 64; Ex. 19.)
Thus, since the Government met its burden on each of the four elements, this Court will grant the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count I and enter judgment in favor of the Government in the following amounts: (1) $27,345.89 for the 2014 tax year, plus interest and other statutory additions from May 28, 2015; and (2) $425,458 for the 2015 tax year, plus interest and other statutory additions from April 13, 2016. See 26 U.S.C. § 6602 (requiring interest from the date the erroneous refund was issued).
B. As requested in Count II, the Government is entitled to collect the civil penalties assessed against Defendant for filing frivolous tax returns for the 2012 through 2016 taxable years.
The Government is entitled to collect the civil penalties assessed against Defendant under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 for filing frivolous returns for the tax years 2012 through 2016. The Internal Revenue Code provides that:
[A] person shall pay a penalty of $5,000 if such person files what purports to be a return of a tax imposed by this title but which does not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged, or contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect.26 U.S.C. § 6702(a)(1). This conduct must be “based on a position which the Secretary has identified as frivolous,” or “reflect[] a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws.” 26 U.S.C. § 6702(a)(2). Returns have been deemed frivolous when the taxpayer reports fictitious interest and withholding without any supporting documentation or when the claimed withholdings are disproportionately high compared to income on the supporting documents. See Osband v. Comm'r, 106 T.C.M. (CCH) 124 (2013); United States v. Chaffee, No. 18-11559, 2019 WL 8403506, at *13 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 2019).
Furthermore, there is no genuine dispute of material fact here as to the correctness of the frivolous filing penalties that the IRS assessed against Defendant under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 for the tax years 2012 to 2016. (Doc. No. 30-1 at 8.) Assessments are “entitled to a legal presumption of correctness.” United States v. Fior D'Italia, Inc., 536 U.S. 238, 242 (2002). Therefore, when the Government introduces proof of assessment to support a motion for summary judgment, the taxpayer can only avoid summary judgment by presenting evidence that the assessments are incorrect. See United States v. Byock, 130 Fed.Appx. 594, 595 (3rd Cir. 2005). Defendant has not done so.
Here, the record reveals that for the 2012 to 2016 tax years, Defendant filed frivolous income tax returns that exaggerated her withholding, interest income, claims for refund, and other income. On her amended 2012 income tax return, Defendant reported that an additional $20,445 of income taxes had been withheld while the W-2 from her employers only indicated that $507 had been withheld. (Ex. 6 at 4, line 62; Ex. 16.) On her 2013 return, Defendant reported that income taxes of $34,976 had been withheld while the W-2 from her employers reported that only $845 in income taxes had been withheld. (Ex. 2 at 3 line 62; Ex. 17.) She also reported that she had a taxable interest of $34,131, yet no financial institutions reported to the IRS that Defendant had earned any interest income. (Ex. 2 at 1 line 8a; Ex. 17.)
On her 2014 return, Defendant reported that, based on eleven Forms 1099-OID, $51,548 of income taxes had been withheld. (Ex. 3 at 3 line 64, 20.) However, the W-2 information from Defendant's employers indicated that only $454 in income taxes had been withheld. (Ex. 18.) Further, no third party reported information to the IRS consistent with what Defendant reported on the eleven Forms 1099-OID she had submitted. (Compare Ex. 3 at 3 line 64, 20 with Ex. 18.) Additionally, Defendant reported that she had a taxable interest of $57,207, yet no financial institutions reported to the IRS that Defendant had earned any interest income. (Ex. 3 at 1, line 8a; Ex. 18.)
On her 2015 income tax return, Defendant reported that $1,544,862 of income taxes had been withheld and that she had a taxable interest of $1,716,513. (Ex. 4 at 3 line 64; Ex. 4 at 1 line 8a.) However, the W-2 information for Defendant indicated that $0 in income taxes had been withheld and no financial institution reported to the IRS that Defendant had earned any interest income. (Ex. 19.) Also, on her 2015 return, Defendant reported $1,672,890 in other income, aside from social security benefits. (Ex. 4 at 1 line 21.) Yet there has been no independent substantiation or reporting of this $1.6 million in other income that Defendant claimed on her return. (Ex. 19.) She later submitted an amended 2015 income tax return on which she indicated that she was owed an additional refund of $582,094. (Ex. 7 at 3 line 21.)
Finally, on her 2016 income tax return, Defendant reported that $592,312 of income taxes had been withheld and a taxable interest of $658,140. (Ex. 5 at 3 line 64, 1 line 8a.) However, no employer reported to the IRS any income tax withholdings for Defendant and the only financial institution that reported to the IRS regarding Defendant reported that she had earned only $15 of interest income. (Ex. 20.) Defendant also reported other income in the amount of $658,125, excluding social security benefits, but there has been no independent substantiation or third-party reporting of this claim. (Ex. 5 at 1 line 21; Ex. 20.)
For filing these false and frivolous returns, the IRS assessed $5,000 per return, claiming to a total special assessment in the amount of $35,000 plus interest and statutory penalties. Further, since Defendant has not presented evidence that the Government's assessments were incorrect, there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to the correctness of the tax assessments. To substantiate its claims, the Government introduced account transcripts and a signed declaration from a Revenue Officer explaining how the assessments were made. (See Doc. No. 30-1 at 7-8; see generally Muller Decl.) The account transcripts detail that, as of January 17, 2022, Defendant owes the United States $36,751.10, plus interest and statutory additions, for filing frivolous returns during the 2012 through 2016 tax years. (Id. ¶ 31.)
Thus, because the evidence precludes any dispute that Defendant's returns were frivolous, and because there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to the correctness of the Government's assessments, the Court will grant the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II. Accordingly, this Court will enter judgment in favor of the Government in the amount of $36,751.10, plus interest and other statutory additions accruing after January 17, 2022, for the civil penalties assessed against Defendant for filing frivolous returns for the 2012 through 2016 tax years.
C. As requested in Count III, the Government is entitled to collect the tax and additions to tax assessed against Defendant for her 2013 income tax return.
The Government also is entitled to recover the tax and additions to the tax assessed against Defendant for her 2013 income taxes. The Internal Revenue Code provides that:
If on any return or claim for refund of income taxes . . . there is an overstatement of the credit for income tax withheld at the source, or of the amount paid as estimated income tax, the amount so overstated which is allowed against the tax shown on the return or which is allowed as a credit or refund may be assessed by the Secretary in the same manner as in the case of a mathematical or clerical error appearing upon the return . . .26 U.S.C. § 6201(a)(3). Further, as previously stated, assessments are “entitled to a legal presumption of correctness.” Fior D'Italia, Inc., 536 U.S. at 242. Therefore, when the Government introduces proof of assessment to support a motion for summary judgment, the taxpayer can only avoid summary judgment by presenting evidence that the assessments are incorrect. See Byock, 130 Fed.Appx. at 595.
Here, as above, Defendant has not presented evidence that the Government's assessments are incorrect. According to the evidence submitted by the Government, in March 2014, a delegate assessed an income tax of $4,061 against Defendant based on her self-reported tax due on her 2013 income tax return. (Ex. 8 at 2.) Then, in March 2017, based on Defendant's exaggerated 2013 income tax withholding, a delegate assessed an additional tax of $34,131 against Defendant under 26 U.S.C. § 6201(a)(3). (Id.) Without evidence from Defendant to dispute the correctness of these assessments, there is no genuine dispute of material fact and this Court will grant the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count III regarding Defendant's 2013 income taxes and will enter judgment in favor of the Government in the amount of $65,010.51, plus statutory additions and interest accruing after January 17, 2022.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 30) will be granted as to Counts I and II and granted in part as to Count III. An appropriate Order follows.