The case was a collection due process dispute, and the government was granted summary judgment on the grounds that Schiff collaterally estopped from contesting IRS collection efforts by reason of the decision in United States of America v. Irwin A. Schiff, No. CV-S-01-0895-PMP(LRL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 7/12/2004), affd. 240 Fed. Appx. 738 (9th Cir. 2006).
The District Court case relied upon by the Tax Court was the action brought by the IRS to reduce Schiff's various tax assessments to a judgment against him. Schiff opposed the assessments for civil fraud on the grounds that his actions were irrational and the result of a “mental disease or defect,” so that he was unable to act “willfully” within the meaning of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code relating to tax fraud.
The following is the gist of the March Tax Court decision:
Irwin A. Schiff v. Commissioner, No. 21322-07L (U.S.T.C. 3/10/2011).In an Amendment to Answer filed October 21, 2010, and in the presently pending motion for summary judgment, respondent relies on collateral estoppel based on the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada entered July 12, 2004, in the case of United States of America v. Irwin A. Schiff, CV-S-01-0895-PMP(LRL), affd. 240 Fed. Appx. 738 (9th Cir. 2006).
In the moving papers, respondent cites relevant authorities concerning collateral estoppel and analyzes appropriate factors for application of that doctrine. Respondent's motion also refutes petitioner's contentions in this case concerning the verification requirements under Internal Revenue Code section 6330 and cites relevant authorities supporting respondent's position that the requirements of that section were satisfied.
As to many of petitioner's contentions, including contentions as to tax return filings and assessment and collection procedures to be verified under section 6330, the Court found in an Order dated August 2, 2010, that "virtually all of the statements, contentions, and/or arguments" that petitioner made in his then pending cross-motion for summary judgment were frivolous and/or groundless. Petitioner repeats those same arguments in his objection to the presently pending motion. Those arguments are not worthy of further consideration or response.
Petitioner's objection to respondent's motion does not address the authorities cited by respondent with respect to collateral estoppel but instead attempts impermissible collateral attacks on the District Court judgment and on petitioner's prior criminal conviction, which led to his present incarceration. Petitioner reasserts his long held frivolous position that no law makes him liable for income tax and repeats other meritless demands that he presented to the Appeals officer in the underlying administrative proceedings. During those administrative proceedings, petitioner did not propose any collection alternatives or raise other bona fide issues with respect to the propriety of the collection action. He merely disputed his underlying liabilities with frivolous arguments and demanded that the Appeals officer provide certain forms of verification based on petitioner's erroneous views of the law. In response to respondent's citation of cases refuting his contentions as to procedural requirements of section 6330, petitioner asserts in his objection that this Court's precedents showing the erroneous nature of his arguments are not binding on him. We decline to dignify petitioner's disregard of controlling authorities by engaging in a debate with him. His history of litigation, including the record in this case, shows that he simply refuses to acknowledge the adverse rulings of the courts.
The validity of the assessments underlying the proposed collection actions in this case has been litigated and decided against petitioner in the above-referenced District Court action, and he is collaterally estopped from challenging those assessments. Petitioner has not shown any genuine dispute as to a material issue of fact or that summary judgment may not be entered as a matter of law. Upon review of the entire record, summary judgment is appropriate.
