U.S. v. LAMBERT, (W.D.La. 2003)

TUCKER MELANCON, District Judge

Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the government [Rec. Doc. 8]. The Court notes that Plaintiff has not submitted any opposition to summary judgment. Nonetheless, under such circumstances the movant who seeks summary judgment must still meet its burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50 F.3d 360, 362 (5th Cir. 1995). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion will be granted.

This case arises from the alleged failure of the defendants to satisfy outstanding assessed federal income liabilities. The government claims outstanding liabilities for: federal income tax for John and Bette Lambert for the years 1988 through 1995 and 1997; PICA taxes assessed against John Lambert for the fourth quarter of 1991, the first, second and fourth quarters of 1992, the first, third and fourth quarters of 1993, 1 and the first and second quarters of 1994; and federal unemployment taxes assessed against John Lambert for the 1994 tax year. The government has submitted certified copies of certificates of assessment against John and Bette Lambert and John Lambert individually, as well as a declaration of indebtedness by the Internal Revenue Service. (Motion for S.J., exs. A-F). The declaration of indebtedness as of June 30, 2003, signed by a representative of the Internal Revenue Service July 1, 2003, states those liabilities as the following: federal income tax against John and Bette Lambert, including interest and penalties, in the amount of $189,546.55 and any additional interest or penalties; PICA assessments and withholding taxes against John Lambert in the amount of $43,278.55, including interest and penalties, in addition to subsequently accrued interest and penalties; and federal unemployment taxes against John Lambert, including penalties and interest, in the amount of $520.90, in addition to any subsequently accrued interest and penalties.

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the pleadings, depositions and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) (enbane). When a party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if such evidence were uncontroverted at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). As to issues which the non-moving party has the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may satisfy this burden by demonstrating the absence of evidence supporting the non-moving party's claim. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324.

Once the movant produces such evidence, the burden shifts to the respondent to direct the attention of the court to evidence in the record sufficient to establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial. Id The responding party may not rest on mere allegations made in the pleadings as a means of establishing a genuine issue worthy of trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,248-49 (1986); Little, 37 F.3d at 1075. If no issue of fact is presented and if the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the court is required to render the judgment prayed for. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322. Before it can find that there are no genuine issues of material fact, however, the court must be satisfied that no reasonable trier of fact could have found for the non-moving party. Id.

Taxpayers bear the burden of overcoming the presumption that the Commissioner's tax assessment is correct. Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. Ill, 115 (1933); Lunsford v. Commissioner, 2 U F.2d S 78, 882 (5th Cir. 1954). The defendants have presented no evidence or legal argument that would suggest the assessment is incorrect and the Court, after independent evaluation, finds that there is no such evidence or argument.

Based on the record before it, the Court finds that the government's motion for summary judgment should be granted and defendants found liable for the following: federal income tax against John and Bette Lambert, including interest and penalties, in the amount of $189,546.55 and any additional interest or penalties; PICA assessments and withholding taxes against John Lambert in the amount of $43,278.55, including interest and penalties, in addition to subsequently accrued interest and penalties; and federal unemployment taxes against John Lambert, including penalties and interest, in the amount of $520.90, in addition to any subsequently accrued interest and penalties