United States v. Bryan

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Writing for the Court: HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Docket Number: 2:22-cv-01962-DJC-AC
• Decision Date: 16 December 2025
• Citation: United States v. Bryan, 2:22-cv-01962-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal. Dec 16, 2025)
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARK LINN BRYAN, et al., Defendants.

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARK LINN BRYAN, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-01962-DJC-AC

United States District Court, E.D. California

December 16, 2025

ORDER

HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff United States filed this action to reduce federal tax assessments against Defendant Mark L. Bryan to judgment and to foreclose federal tax liens on a residential property owned by Mr. Bryan and his former spouse, Lori Bryan. Before the Court is the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (ECF No. 201.) Since the Court heard argument in the United States' Motion, Mr. Bryan moved for leave to amend his counterclaims (ECF No. 227) and filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 229). For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the United States' Motion and denies Mr. Bryan's motions.

BACKGROUND

Mark L Bryan is a United States citizen who has lived in California his entire life. (Defendant Lori Bryan's Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Facts (“RSUF”) (ECF No. 205-1) ¶¶ 1-3.)^[1] Mr. Bryan has not filed a federal income tax return since 2002. (Id. ¶ 4.)

In this case, the United States seeks to reduce to judgment federal tax assessments against Mr. Bryan for unpaid taxes solely between 2014 and 2017. During these years, Mr. Bryan earned income for machine work and other services he performed. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.) Mr. Bryan also collected interest income and social security payments during the relevant period. (Id. ¶ 8.) In each year, Mr Bryan received an income in excess of the threshold filing amount. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 9.)

In 2018, the IRS reviewed its records to determine Mr. Bryan's tax liability under 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b). (Id. ¶ 13.) The IRS calculated Mr. Bryan's unpaid taxes for the tax years 2013-2017 and proposed penalties based on a bank record deposit analysis and review of other information in the IRS's Information Returns Processing System. (Id. ¶ 14.) After Mr. Bryan did not respond to a letter informing him of these penalties and inviting him to file tax returns, the IRS issued a statutory notice of deficiency to Mr. Bryan. (Id. ¶¶ 16-17.) Though Mr. Bryan “returned” the notice of deficiency to the IRS, he did not timely appeal. (Id. ¶¶ 19-20.) On April 29, 2019, the IRS assessed unpaid taxes and penalties for Mr. Bryan for the relevant years. (Id. ¶ 21.) The IRS then issued two notices and demands for payment to Mr. Bryan in late spring of 2019. (Id. ¶¶ 2122.) To date, Mr. Bryan has not made full payment of the assessed amounts. (Id. ¶ 23.)

The United States now seeks to foreclose federal tax liens on Mr. Bryan and Lori Bryan's residential property at 10301 East Newfield Road, Lodi, California 95240 (the “Subject Property”). (Id. ¶ 28; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (“Mot.”) (ECF No. 201) at 1.) Mr. and Ms. Bryan married in 1980. (RSUF ¶ 24.) The couple purchased the Subject Property together in 1995 and has co-owned it since that time. (Id. ¶¶ 31,35.) The grant deed states that Mr. and Ms. Bryan acquired the Subject Property as “husband and wife as joint tenants.” (Mot., Ex. 10 (ECF No. 201-25) at 1.) In 1998, Mr. and Ms. Bryan executed two grant deeds, one transferring their interests in the Subject Property to themselves as community property, and the other transferring their interests to themselves as trustees of a trust. (RSUF ¶ 36.) In 2001, Mr. and Ms. Bryan executed another deed transferring their interests in the Subject Property from themselves as trustees to themselves as “husband and wife as community property with right of survivorship.” (Id. ¶ 37.)

In early 2017, the IRS informed Mr. and Ms. Bryan that it intended to request that the U.S. Department of Justice file a suit to reduce Mr. Bryan's previous unpaid tax liabilities to judgment and to foreclose on the Subject Property. (Id. ¶¶ 42-43.) Over the course of the next few years, the IRS repeatedly warned the Bryans that the IRS intended to foreclose on the Subject Property if Mr. Bryan did not file his delinquent tax returns. (Id. ¶¶ 43, 45-50, 52, 72.) Although Mr. Bryan initially indicated that he would comply and file his returns, he later informed Ms. Bryan, who informed an IRS Officer, that he had changed his mind. (Id. ¶¶ 49, 53.)

In 2018, Ms. Bryan signed a Quitclaim deed, which purportedly transferred her title and interest in the Subject Property to herself as trustee of the Lori M. Bryan Separate Property Revocable Trust. (Id. ¶ 56.) Mr. Bryan did not sign the Quitclaim Deed nor otherwise agree in writing to the transfer of any portion of the Subject Property in relation to this Quitclaim deed. (Id. ¶¶ 57-58.) Ms. Bryan's 2018 deed was recorded in the San Joaquin County Recorder's Office on May 15, 2018. (Id. ¶ 60.) The IRS recorded a Notice of Federal Tax Lien on the Subject Property with the same Recorder's Office on July 15, 2019. (Id. ¶ 70.)

The United States now moves for summary judgment, seeking to reduce the relevant federal tax assessments against Mr. Bryan to judgment and to foreclose federal tax liens on the Subject Property. Briefing on the United States' Motion is now complete. (Mot. (ECF No. 201); (MB^[2] Opp'n (ECF No. 204); (MB Am. Opp'n (ECF No. 208); (LB^[3] Opp'n (ECF No. 205); (Reply (ECF No. 207). The Court heard argument on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on November 6, 2025. Connor Pestovich appeared for Plaintiff, Steven Cottrell appeared for Defendant Lori Bryan, and Defendant Mr. Bryan appeared in propria persona. The United States' Motion was taken under submission. (See ECF No. 223.) In accordance with this Court's Order at ECF No. 121, the United States has not filed oppositions to either of Mr. Bryan's Motions. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), Mr. Bryan's Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 227) and Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 229) are submitted without oral argument.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment may be granted when the evidence shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The principal purpose of summary judgment is to dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Therefore, the “threshold inquiry” is whether there are any factual issues that could reasonably be resolved in favor of either party, or conversely, whether the facts are so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-52 (1986).

However, "[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Id. at 248. A “material” fact is relevant to an element of a claim or defense that may affect the outcome of the case. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). “Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude a grant of summary judgment.” Id.

In a summary judgment motion, the moving party must inform the court of the basis for the motion and identify the portion of the record that it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party, who must establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585 (1986). To meet their burden, parties must either cite to materials in the record supporting their position or show that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1).

For the opposing party to succeed and avoid summary judgment, they “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. Rather, the opposing party must produce enough evidence to show that, based on this evidence, a reasonable trier of fact could find in the opposing party's favor. T.W., 809 F.2d at 631. In other words, for the moving party to succeed, the court must conclude that no rational trier of fact could find for the opposing party. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. However, so as not to usurp the role of the jury, “[credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255; Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587-88. Therefore, the court draws all reasonable inferences and views all evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Id.

DISCUSSION

I. Reduction of Federal Tax Assessments to Judgment

This Court has the power to render judgments “as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws.” 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a). “In an action to collect taxes, the government bears the initial burden of proof.” In re Olshan, 356 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). The government may satisfy this burden by presenting the Court with federal tax assessments. United States v. Stonehill, 702 F.2d 1288, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983). Deficiency determinations and assessments for unpaid taxes are “presumed correct, so long as they are supported by minimal factual foundation.” Olshan, 356 F.3d at 1084; see also United States v. Weldon, No. 21-15311,2022 WL 2340807, at *1 (9th Cir. June 29, 2022). Once the government presents these assessments to the Court, the burden shifts to the taxpayer to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a deficiency “determination is arbitrary, excessive or without foundation.” Olshan, 356 F.3d at 1084. “If the taxpayer fails to rebut the presumption, the government is entitled to judgment...