Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-1901-MHS.
August 25, 2005
ORDER
Presently before the Court is the government's motion to alter or amend judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the government's motion.
Background
This case involves liability for failing to pay withheld employment taxes. The tax code and the regulations thereunder require employers to withhold taxes from employees' paychecks which constitute a trust in favor of the United States and for which the employer is liable. The government brought this action against defendant to reduce liability to judgment for failing to pay the withheld taxes pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6672. The basis for the assessment was that defendant was the person responsible for collecting, accounting for, or paying over withheld taxes for employees of W.C.C., Inc., for the last quarter of 1991 and the last three quarters of 1992.
Section 6672 of the Code provides: "Any person required to collect, truthfully account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect such tax, or truthfully account for and pay over such tax, or willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any such tax or the payment thereof, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be liable to a penalty equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collected, or not accounted for and paid over."
On May 3, 1993, defendant filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 which automatically stayed proceedings for collection against defendant. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6) (1993). The bankruptcy court confirmed defendant's reorganization plan on May 18, 1994. On July 4, 1994, a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury assessed a § 6672 penalty against defendant for $109,724.30. The bankruptcy court entered a final decree in defendant's case on December 12, 1994. The government filed no other assessments against defendant for the amount it seeks in this case.
In 1994, Congress amended § 362 to exclude the assessment of taxes from the scope of an automatic stay in bankruptcy petitions filed on or after October 22, 1994. Defendant filed his bankruptcy petition before this amendment.
The assessment of a tax or penalty by the IRS is essentially a bookkeeping procedure that permits the government to collect a tax. Laing v. United States, 423 U.S. 161, 170 n. 13 (1976); Williams-Russell Johnson v. United States, 371 F.3d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 2004). An assessment is the basis on which the IRS takes action against those who do not voluntarily pay their taxes. Zeier v. United States, 80 F.3d 1360, 1364 (9th Cir. 1996).
The parties each moved for summary judgment. In its Order dated May 2, 2005, the Court denied summary judgment for the government and granted summary judgment for defendant holding that the government's § 6672 tax assessment was void and without effect because it was made in violation of the automatic stay.
Discussion
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), the government now moves to alter or amend the Court's judgment in granting summary judgment for defendant and denying summary judgment for the government. The government argues that the Court has committed a manifest error of law and therefore its motion for reconsideration is appropriate. The government contends that the stay was lifted when the bankruptcy court issued defendant a general discharge by confirming his reorganization plan on May 18, 1994, and therefore the tax assessment was not made in violation of the automatic stay.
Defendant argues that the government's motion fails to satisfy the threshold requirements for a motion for reconsideration. He argues that the government has merely repeated arguments it already made to the Court and the Court has not made a manifest error of law because the government has failed to cite a single case that directly contradicts the Court's conclusions of law. In addition, defendant avers that the Court's conclusions are correct. He further argues that assuming that the Court's conclusions are incorrect, a grant of summary judgment for defendant is warranted: the government's assessment is void because July 17, 1994, is the earliest date that the bankruptcy court could have issued a discharge according to the effective date of the plan.
Under Local Rule 7.2(E), "[m]otions for reconsideration shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice." LR 7.2(E), ND Ga. The decision to grant a motion for reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Fla. Ass'n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep't of Health and Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1216 (11th Cir. 2000). Motions for reconsideration are to be filed only when "absolutely necessary" where there is: (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) an intervening development or change in controlling law; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of law or fact. Bryan v. Murphy, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1258-59 (N.D. Ga. 2003). "An error is not `clear and obvious' if the legal issues are `at least arguable.'" United States v. Battle, 272 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1358 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (quoting American Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess Associates, Inc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1239 (11th Cir. 1985)). Motions for reconsideration are not appropriate to present the Court with arguments already heard and dismissed, to repackage familiar arguments, or to show the Court how it "could have done it better" the first time. Pres. Endangered Areas of Cobb's History, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs., 916 F. Supp. 1557, 1560 (N.D. Ga. 1995), aff'd 97 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 1996).
The Court denies the government's motion for reconsideration. The government has repeated arguments it made in its motion for summary judgment and has failed to show that the Court has made a clear and obvious error in holding that the government's assessment was void because it was made in violation of the automatic stay. The government argues that the Court misconstrued the law, however, the government has failed to cite to any case binding on this Court that demonstrates that the Court made a clear error. Hence, the Court adheres to its prior ruling for the reasons stated in its Order, dated May 2, 2005. Summary
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the government's motion to alter or amend judgment [#31].
IT IS SO ORDERED.