MAURICE PAUL, Senior District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgement, (doc. 18). Defendant presented a brief set of objections to that Motion, (doc. 21). Because the Court finds no genuine issue as to any material fact, the Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant, Keith Grimes ("Grimes"), is the Personal Representative of his father's, Donald O. Carswell ("Carswell"), estate, (doc. 1, ¶ 1). Carswell passed away in May, 2002. (doc. 1, ¶ 5). Subsequent to his death, the Secretary of Treasury made an assessment against Carswell for unpaid taxes during the years 1998 and 1999. (doc. 1, ¶ 7). The amount of that assessment, which includes unpaid Federal income tax, penalties and interest, is stated by the Government as $112, 859.96. (doc. 1, ¶ 7; doc. 18, attachments).
The Government brought the instant suit in November, 2002 to obtain a judgment for Carswell's unpaid taxes, (doc 1, ¶ 1). Grimes, as personal representative of his deceased Father's estate, answered the Government's Complaint with two affirmative defenses: (1) that his father's illeness and hospitalization immediately preceding his death constituted excusable neglect; and (2) his Father had relied upon the advice of his tax preparer in submitting taxes in 1998 and 1999. (doc. 6, pg. 2).
The Parties submitted a joint scheduling report to the Court (doc. 12), which was subsequently adopted by the Court, (doc. 14). Pursuant to that report, discovery closed in this matter on June 30, 2003. On July 29, 2003, the Government moved for summary judgment, submitting certified copies of the IRS assessment reports for the years 1998 and 1999. (doc. 18 attachments). Grimes objected to that motion, but has presented no attached documents or evidence with that objection, (doc. 21).
II. ANALYSIS
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), summary judgment is proper when:
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). The party bringing the Motion bears the burden of demonstrating they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). However, unlike a Motion to Dismiss, the non-moving party cannot simply rest on the allegations in their pleadings. Instead, they must present some actual evidence that shows the Court there is a genuine issue in the case requiring a trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e).
Here, the Government has presented competent and sufficient evidence of a valid assessment of tax liability against Carswell. The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that a Certificate of Assessments and Payments is "presumptive proof "of a valid tax assessment. See U.S. v. Chila, 871 F.2d 1015, 1018 (11th Cir. 1989). The Government included Certified copies of the 1998 and 1999 tax assessments against Carswell as attachments to its Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 18).
Because the Government has presented presumptive evidence of a valid tax assessment against Carswell, the burden has shifted to Grimes to present some evidence to rebut that assessment. Counsel for Grimes has presented no evidence to rebut the validity of the Government's tax assessment. Instead, Counsel has generally objected that because he was new to the case and because Mr. Grimes possessed little actual knowledge concerning his father's estate, it "would be a supreme injustice to the estate of Donald O. Carswell" for the Court to enter summary judgment, (doc. 21, ¶ 6). That general objection to the Government's motion for summary judgment was filed with the Court on August 4, 2003. Counsel has not attempted to petition the Court for either additional time to respond to the Government's motion for summary judgment or attempted to supplement the record in any way concerning the facts of his client's case. Absent any evidence for the Court to consider in rebuttal of the Government's presumptively valid tax assessment, the Court has no option but to enter summary judgment for the Government. The Government's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 19) is hereby GRANTED. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
The Government's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 19) is GRANTED. The Government should submit to the Court a calculation of total liability for the 1998 and 1999 tax years with appropriate statutory additions and interest.
DONE AND ORDERED