Waltner v. Waltner
| Decision Date | 22 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 10-225T,10-225T |
| Parties | STEVEN T. WALTNER and SARAH v. WALTNER, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
federal Claims
Pro Se Plaintiffs; Motion to Dismiss; Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Hearing, Motions to Strike
Steven T. Waltner and Sarah V. Waltner, Avondale, AZ, pro se.
David R. House, Trial Attorney, Court of Federal Claims Section, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the defendant. With him were Steven I. Frahm, Chief, Court of Federal Claims Section, United States Department of Justice and John A. DiCicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division.
The plaintiffs, Steven T. Waltner and Sarah V. Waltner, filed a pro se complaint in this court, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On May 7, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' application to proceed in forma pauperis based on the sworn affidavits of both plaintiffs. See Waltner v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 139 (2010).1 In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they are owed a refund from theInternal Revenue Service (IRS) for each of the taxable years from 2003 through 2008. The plaintiffs also allege that they are entitled to statutory damages for violation by the IRS of an Arizona recording statute, Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-420 (2010). Plaintiffs claim the IRS violated A.R.S. § 33-420, by recording a tax lien against plaintiff Sarah V. Waltner on December 30, 2009 in Maricopa County, Arizona.
On or before April 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed their federal income tax return Form 1040 for the taxable year ending December 31, 2003, reporting taxable income of $96,100.00, a reported tax due of $13,841.00, and reported an overpayment of $10,040.00, which was refunded on April 5, 2004. On an amended tax return, Form 1040X, for 2003, filed on February 1, 2008, plaintiffs reported an adjusted gross income in the amount of $14,485.00 and an overpayment of $18,356.00. Plaintiffs claim the amount of income includes "Unemployment Compensation, a Federal instrumentality; no other 'income' or 3401(a) or 3121(a) 'wages' received." Plaintiffs indicate that the return they filed on "February 1, 2008 for the year 2003 contains no mathematical errors, and the figures for adjusted gross income, standard deduction and exemptions calculate to no taxable income and $0 in tax, which calculations are substantially correct." (internal citations omitted).
Plaintiffs also included a Form 8082, Notice of Inconsistent Treatment or Administrative Adjustment Request with their 2003 amended income tax return. Plaintiffs claimed that the amount of ordinary dividends listed as $1,444.33 on Schedule K-1 by the Sarah V. Waltner Trust was incorrect and should be zero. Plaintiffs stated, Additionally, plaintiffs claimed the amount of qualified dividends, listed as $1,739.05 on Schedule K-1 by the Sarah V. Waltner Trust, was incorrect and should be zero. Plaintiffs stated, Plaintiffs similarly claimed that the amount of net long-term capital gain listed as $68,872.88 on Schedule K-1 by the Sarah V. Waltner Trust was incorrect and should be zero. Plaintiffs stated, Finally, plaintiffs claimed the amount of net long-term capital gain (post May 5, 2003) listed as $6,673,67 on Schedule K-1 by the Sarah V. Waltner Trust was incorrect and should be zero. Plaintiffs stated,
Plaintiffs additionally filed a Form 4852, Substitute for Form W-2, reporting Steven T. Waltner's wages as zero and asserting that the original Form W-2 was incorrect and that the payer, New Century Mortgage Corp., "erroneously alleged payments of IRC Section 3401(a) [definition of wages] and 3121(a) [] 'wages'" which plaintiffs disputed, stating Mr. Waltner "received no such 'wages.'" In the entry on the Substitute for Form W-2 which asked to "[e]xplain your efforts to obtain Form W-2, Form 1099-R, or Form W-2c, Corrected Wage and Tax Statement," plaintiff Steven T. Waltner stated: "None, since most companies refuse to issue forms correctly listing payments of 'wages as defined in [26 U.S.C. §] 3401(a) and [26 U.S.C. §] 3121(a)."
Finally, plaintiffs included a Form 1099-DIV with the amended return, listing the amount of dividends received as zero and stated:
This correcting Form 1099-DIV is submitted to rebut a document known to have been submitted by the party identified above as "PAYER" [Citigroup Global Markets Inc.] which erroneously alleged a payment to the party identified above as the "RECIPIENT" [Steven T. Waltner] of DIVIDENDS reportable under IRC 6042 [26 U.S.C. § 6042 (2006)]. The 1099-DIV should not have been issued as NO such payments were received. Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have examined this statement and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct and complete.
Plaintiffs seek $18,356.00, plus interest, for the federal income tax withheld by the IRS for their refund claim for the 2003 tax year.
On or before April 25, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their federal income tax return Form 1040 for the taxable year ending December 31, 2004, reporting taxable income of $48,631.00, a reported tax due of $2,751.00 and an overpayment of $4,119.00, which was refunded on May 30, 2005. The Form 1040 reported $4,184.00 in capital gains and business income of $3,569.00. Included with plaintiffs' return was a Form W-2 which reported income from Steven T. Waltner's wages in the amount of $70,694.26 and income tax withholding in the amount of $6,970.29.
Subsequently, on or before February 12, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended income tax return, Form 1040X, for the 2004 taxable year, reporting adjusted gross income in the amount of $370.00 and an overpayment of $8,334.00. Plaintiffs indicate the return "filed by Plaintiffs on or about February 12, 2008 for the year 2004 contains no mathematical errors, and the figures for adjusted gross income, standard deduction and exemptions calculate to $370 taxable income and $0 in tax, which calculations aresubstantially correct." (internal citations omitted). The adjusted gross income of $370.00 corresponded to unemployment compensation received by plaintiff Sarah V. Waltner.
With their amended return for the 2004 tax year, plaintiffs filed a Form 4852, Substitute for Form W-2, reporting Steven T. Waltner's wages as zero and asserting that the original Form W-2 was incorrect and payer, New Century Mortgage Corp., "erroneously alleged payments of IRC section 3401(a) and 3121(a) wages'" which plaintiffs disputed, stating Mr. Waltner "received no such 'wages.'" In the entry on the Substitute for Form W-2 which asked to "[e]xplain your efforts to obtain Form W-2, Form 1099-R, or Form W-2c, Corrected Wage and Tax Statement," plaintiff Steven T. Waltner stated, as he had on the Substitute for Form W-2 for the 2003 tax year, "[n]one, since most companies refuse to issue forms correctly listing payments of 'wages as defined in [26 U.S.C. §] 3401(a) and [26 U.S.C. §] 3121(a)."
As with the 2003 tax year, the plaintiffs included a Form 1099-DIV with the amended return, listing the amount of dividends received as zero. The 2004 version stated:
This correcting Form 1099-DIV is submitted to rebut a document known to have been submitted by the party identified above as "PAYER" [Citigroup Global Markets Inc.] which erroneously alleged a payment to the party identified above as the "RECIPIENT" [Steven T. Waltner] of DIVIDENDS reportable under IRC 6042 [26 U.S.C. § 6042]. The 1099-DIV should not have been issued as NO such payments were received. Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have examined this statement and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct and complete.
Plaintiffs also included a number of Forms 1099-INT with the amended return. In the first Form 1099-INT, the plaintiffs listed the amount of interest income as zero and stated:
This correcting Form 1099-INT is submitted to rebut a document known to have been submitted by the party identified above as "PAYER" [Keypoint Credit Union] which erroneously alleged a payment to the party identified above as the "RECIPIENT" [Steven T. Waltner] of "gains, profit or income" made in the course of a "trade or business." Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have examined this statement and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct and complete.
For the second Form 1099-INT, the plaintiffs likewise listed the amount of interest income as zero and stated:
This correcting Form 1099-INT is submitted to rebut a document known to have been submitted by the party identified above as "PAYER" [Countrywide Home Loans] which erroneously alleged a payment to theparty identified above as...
To continue reading
Request your trial