Mottahedeh, Peymon

[Demosthenes]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
PEYMON MOTTAHEDEH,
Defendants.

No. CV 08–2740 PA (CWx)

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Court’s September 15, 2008 Minute Order granting summary
judgment in favor of plaintiff the United States of America on its claim to reduce federal tax
assessments to judgment,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant Peymon
Mottahedeh is personally liable and indebted to the United States of America for unpaid
assessed federal income taxes, interest, penalties, plus accrued interest and penalties from
the respective dates of assessment for the years 1992, 1993, and 1994, in the total amount of
$90,049.57 as of May 31, 2008, plus interest and penalties accruing after May 31, 2008, as
permitted by law, until such obligation is paid.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 15, 2008 ___________________________________

Percy Anderson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

[Demosthenes]

Mottahedeh v. Tambornini
9th Cir.
No. 07-55530
Nov. 6, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-55530
D.C. No. CV-06-02356-SJO

PEYMON MOTTAHEDEH; et al.,
Petitioners - Appellants,
v.
KIRK TAMBORNINI, IRS Special Agent; et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

MEMORANDUM *

*This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Submitted October 28, 2008 **

** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Peymon and April Mottahedeh appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their action arising from a tax investigation and under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, FDIC v. British-Am. Ins. Co., 828 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1987), and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Scholastic Entm't, Inc. v. Fox Entm't Group, Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Agent Tambornini because he was never properly served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(3); see also Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 234 (9th Cir. 1994) (explaining that in California service by mail is valid only if a signed acknowledgment is returned).

The district court did not err when it dismissed the FOIA claims sua sponte. See 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B) (stating the court has jurisdiction to enjoin an “agency from withholding records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld”); Scholastic Entm't, 336 F.3d at 985 (setting forth circumstances when a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim).

Contrary to Appellants' contentions, the district court did not err by dismissing without leave to amend. See Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating that the general rule that parties are allowed to amend their pleadings does not extend to cases where amendment would be futile). Appellants' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

[The Observer]

What? Is the court trying to tell us that the founder of Freedom Law School doesn't know how to serve notices correctly to establish jurisdiction for a district court trial? I would have thought that would be one of the things you learned early on in their syllabus. And then believed that the district court made a mistake ruling on that simple jurisdictional requirement and he could win on appeal?

How embarrassing.

[jcolvin2]

Peymon Mottahedeh currently has a collection due process case pending in the Tax Court. On the government's motion, this case was remanded to appeals in March of last year, because Peymon had not received a "face to face" settlement conference.

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... ID=5458084

The CDP case appears to be on a drift (below is the most recent order requiring status reports).

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... rsID=72611

There is also an income tax case pending in the Tax Court, filed by Peymon and his wife last year. That case is in its initial stages (not yet set for trial). Paymon apparently did not initially pay the $60 filing fee:

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... ID=5599248

Peymon probably paid the requisite fee later or requested a waiver.

[LPC]

Paymon apparently did not initially pay the $60 filing fee:

Which raises an interesting question: What is the credibility of a tax protester guru who files a collection due process appeal in forma pauperis in order to avoid the filing fee in Tax Court?

I expect it really doesn't matter much, but I'm cynical and I believe that tax protesters have tiny brains made of oatmeal, sawdust, and small amounts of insect parts.

[webhick]

I expect it really doesn't matter much, but I'm cynical and I believe that tax protesters have tiny brains made of oatmeal, sawdust, and small amounts of insect parts.

Mmmmm....brains....

[The Observer]

I expect it really doesn't matter much, but I'm cynical and I believe that tax protesters have tiny brains made of oatmeal, sawdust, and small amounts of insect parts.

Mmmmm....brains....

OMG, she has gone zombie.

Which raises an interesting question: What is the credibility of a tax protester guru who files a collection due process appeal in forma pauperis in order to avoid the filing fee in Tax Court?

I guess the credibility is about as bad as same tax protestor claiming to have beaten the system, yet can't explain why he had notices of tax liens recorded against him.

[notorial dissent]

Or is having to file in Tax Court, in forma pauperis, no less???? Sounds like a real fer sure win to me, yup, yup, yup!!!!

[jcolvin2]

Peymon Mottahedeh currently has a collection due process case pending in the Tax Court. On the government's motion, this case was remanded to appeals in March of last year, because Peymon had not received a "face to face" settlement conference.

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... ID=5458084

The CDP case appears to be on a drift (below is the most recent order requiring status reports).

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... rsID=72611

Peyton appears to have prevailed on the remand to appeals:

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... rsID=88413

[jcolvin2]

Despite prevailing at his collection due process hearing, the Tax Court refuses to award Peymon attorney's fees (the request was untimely):

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... rsID=98968

[jcolvin2]

Tax Court issues memo opinion:

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric ... CM.WPD.pdf

Edited 12/30/14 09:18 PST to update link.

[rogfulton]

Tax Court issues memo opinion:

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpTodays/M ... CM.WPD.pdf

That link doesn't appear to work. Here's one that does: http://ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Mott ... CM.WPD.pdf

[jcolvin2]

Tax Court issues memo opinion:

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpTodays/M ... CM.WPD.pdf

That link doesn't appear to work. Here's one that does: http://ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Mott ... CM.WPD.pdf

The "todays opinion" link only works on the day that the opinion was released. On later days, the link has to be replaced with a link to the case in the "historic opinions" portion of the Tax Court site. I am on the West Coast, and hadn't gotten around to updating the link yet.

[Famspear]

I notice that per the Court's opinion, the IRS had asserted the following deficiencies:

tax: $92,917
sec. 6651(a)(1) penalties: $20,906
sec. 6651(a)(2) penalties: $23,232
sec. 6654 penalties: $3,163

The taxpayers failed to file returns for the years in question (2001 through 2006).

The IRS agreed that the 6654 penalties it had asserted were over-stated by $513. As adjusted, he Court upheld the amounts in the three categories of penalties, for a total of $46,788 in penalties.

However, although the Court discusses the dispute between the taxpayers and the IRS over how the INCOME was computed by the IRS for the years in question, I don't see any actual, express statement of a ruling in the text on the $92,917 deficiency. The Court upheld the IRS method for estimating the income amounts for those years, and the penalties were upheld, so I assume that the $92,917 in tax amounts are effectively upheld as well. If the taxpayers simply failed to affirmatively challenge the taxes themselves, the taxpayers would be stuck with those liabilities.

The income amounts for the years in question were:

2001: $44,757
2002: $61,536
2003: $69,653
2004: $66,924
2005: $56,850
2006: $83,629

The Court characterized some of the "Freedom Law School's" promotions as "multilevel marketing arrangements."

Other tidbits:

The Court specifically stated:

Through its conferences, materials, and service packages, the Freedom Law School promoted various techniques for evading the payment of federal income taxes.

The taxpayers played the usual cat and mouse games with the IRS revenue agent assigned to their case -- refusing to comply with a summons, for example, unless the IRS answered a series of 36 questions posed by the taxpayers.

One of Mottahedeh's customers "testified that he paid Peymon Mottahedeh $22,000 in cash for representing him before the California Franchise Tax Board."

In footnote 10, the Court states that the IRS had investigated Peymon "for criminal tax violations."

[jcolvin2]

Order summarizing tax and penalties determined in opinion:

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... sID=157664

[Arthur Rubin]

Two sets of "additions to tax" under section 6551(a)(1). Isn't that "double jeopardy"?

[Famspear]

Two sets of "additions to tax" under section 6551(a)(1). Isn't that "double jeopardy"?

No, that's Double Whammy.

EDIT: Oh, wait. You had a serious question.

My guess is that because the amounts are different, the Court is not actually double-counting. Not sure, though.

Anyway, this is a civil tax matter. Double jeopardy relates to criminal matters.

EDIT 2: For some reason, I still can't come up with a limerick for Peymon Mottahedeh.

Very frustrating.

[JamesVincent]

EDIT 2: For some reason, I still can't come up with a limerick for Peymon Mottahedeh.

Very frustrating.

Frustrating for who?

[LPC]

Two sets of "additions to tax" under section 6551(a)(1). Isn't that "double jeopardy"?

Two different taxpayers. One set of penalties were for Peyton, and one for his wife, April.

To get the benefit of married filing jointly, you have to file a tax return. No returns were filed, so the IRS (and the Tax Court) allocated income to April in accordance with community property laws, then imposed separate taxes and separate penalties on each taxpayer.

[jcolvin2]

Peymon gets permission to request reconsideration:

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... sID=161706