Yuska v. Internal Revenue Serv. (In re Yuska)
| Decision Date | 13 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | Adversary No. 15-9005,Bankruptcy No. 14-01504 |
| Parties | IN RE: DAVID EUGENE YUSKA, Debtor. DAVID EUGENE YUSKA, Plaintiff, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Iowa |
This matter came before the Court for hearing in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on December 12, 2016. Christopher Moran appeared for the United States on behalf of its agency, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). David Yuska appeared pro se. David Yuska has asked the Court to refer to him as "David." The Court will honor that request. The Court received evidence, heard argument, and took the matter under advisement on the documents submitted. The Court told David that he could file additional documents if he wished, and that all filings would be considered, but that the matter was fully submitted and ready for decision. David filed a supplement on January 3, 2017, which the Court has now considered. This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).
David filed this adversary objecting to IRS' claim for unpaid income tax. David disputes the IRS calculation of his tax liability. David argues, among other things, that IRS has not proven that he owes tax, that he is not a taxpayer under the law, that he has not consented to be taxed, and that IRS has no authority to impose a tax on him. David argues that these arguments present genuine issues of material fact for trial. IRS argues that David has presented no facts to support his claims and that his bare denials of tax liability are really legal arguments, which are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. IRS argues that David made, and the Court rejected, these same legal arguments in a separate adversary. IRS argues that the Court should reject his arguments in this case as well. The Court agrees with IRS and grants its motion for summary judgment.
David filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy on September 9, 2014. IRS and Iowa Department of Revenue ("IDOR") filed claims. David filed separate adversaries objecting to IRS' and IDOR's claims. Both adversaries were primarily based on his position that he is not a taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code.
Adversary number 15-9004 is David's objection to IDOR's claim, which he filed on February 9, 2015. After extensive litigation, the Court granted summary judgment to IDOR on July 6, 2016. Yuska v. Iowa Dept. of Revenue (In reYuska), 553 B.R. 669 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2016). David has appealed that ruling. His appeal is currently pending.
This adversary, number 15-9005, which he also filed on February 9, 2015, is David's objection to IRS' claim. His adversary complaint contested his federal tax liability for tax years 2005-2013. IRS moved to dismiss tax years 2005 and 2006 from his complaint because the United States Tax Court had already adjudicated his tax liability for those years. On February 10, 2016, the Court granted that motion. Yuska v. Iowa Dept. of Revenue (In re Yuska), Adv. No. 15-9005, 2016 WL 540854 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa Feb. 10, 2016). As a result, only tax years 2007-2013 remain at issue in this adversary.
IRS has moved for summary judgment on David' objection to its claims for the remaining years. IRS submitted evidence in support of its motion. IRS filed an affidavit from Dayna Kane, who works as a revenue agent for IRS. Kane reviewed IRS documents and summarized her conclusions about what David owes to IRS in her affidavit. Kane's affidavit sets out the evidence supporting IRS' claims.
In particular, Kane reviewed reports from third parties about payments to David to determine whether David received income from 2007-2013. Kane found that David received income for each of those contested years. Kane also reviewed IRS files to determine whether David filed tax returns for those years. She found that David did not file a federal income tax return for any of those years.
Kane calculated David's federal income tax liabilities for each year based on wage and payment information that third parties submitted to IRS. Kane prepared a Form 1040 for David for each year 2007-2013. David's liabilities are set out in these individual tax returns that Kane prepared. Kane's analysis included standard exemptions and deductions, as well was applicable credits and basis. Kane also calculated the penalties for failure to file under 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1), failure to pay penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(2), and failure to make estimated tax payments penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6654. She also calculated the statutory interest on those obligations through June 30, 2016. She set forth these amounts in a table in her affidavit, along with a total amount due to IRS for each year as of June 30, 2016. That table is reproduced here.
Year Tax § 6651(a)(1) penalty § 6651(a)(2) penalty § 6654 penalty Interest Total Amount Due 2007
$198,322 $44,418.83 $49,354.25 $8,980.41 $82,973.03 $383,143.52 2008
$44,757 $9,903.83 $11,004.25 $1,411.92 $14,687.69 $81,024.69 2009
$88,109 $19,761.53 $21,957.25 $2,102.10 $23,939.47 $155,589.35 2010
$152,328 $34,261.43 $38,068.25 $3,265.51 $33,104.66 $260,972.85 2011
$51,143 $11,504.70 $12,783.00 $1,012.27 $8,603.82 $85,035.79 2012
$20,378 $4,582.13 $3,971.18 $365.10 $2,589.83 $31,873.24 2013
$21,960 $4,941.00 $2,964.60 $394.31 $1,915.11 $32,175.02
David disputes the IRS calculation of his tax liability. David objects to each factual statement that IRS set out in its motion for summary judgment. In particular, David asserts that IRS has not properly laid foundation for its documents, that IRS has not properly adjusted for basis in its calculation of his tax liability, and that he did not receive any taxable income. David did not present any evidence about whether or not, from 2007-2013, he received income in the amounts set out by the IRS or whether he filed tax returns for those years. David also did not present any evidence about the proper adjustment in his tax liability for "basis" of income. The failure to present any facts or to identify any genuine factual disputes leaves David with only disputes about the legality of IRS' claim. David makes a number of legal arguments to support his position.
David also repeatedly argues that the Court has not given him sufficient time to prepare his case. David represents himself and does all of the research, writing, and filing on his behalf in this case, the main case, and on his appeal of the IDOR case. David has asserted that he is unable to fully prepare his case because of time limitations and deadlines. David asserts that the Court has ruled unfairly against him because of his arguments and simply refused to give him the time to research the issues and fairly prepare his case as a pro se litigant. A short summary of the history of this adversary and all the accommodations David has received demonstrate that these assertions are baseless.
David filed his Chapter 13 bankruptcy in September 2014. In every proceeding, and at every turn, the Court has given David extensions of time, extra time to argue and brief, and allowed filings far beyond what the rules allow. The Court's accommodation has carried into the adversaries.
In this particular adversary, IRS filed its motion for summary judgment and supporting documentation on July 29, 2016. David filed his motion to extend time for discovery that same day and his statement of disputed issues for trial and supplement on August 1, 2016. David also filed a motion for more definite statement on August 22, 2016.
On August 29, 2016, the Court held a telephonic hearing on David's motion to extend time for discovery, IRS' motion for summary judgment, and David's motion for more definite statement. The Court noted first that the issues in this adversary appeared to be the same as many of those decided in the IDOR case on appeal. The Court suggested expediting a ruling which might allow David to appeal both cases on the same time table. David resisted.
At the time of hearing, David had not filed a resistance to the motion for summary judgment. The Court gave David until October 12, 2016 to file a resistance. The Court noted that IRS would have until November 2, 2016 to file a reply to that resistance. At David's request, the Court set the final hearing on the motion for summary judgment for in-person hearing. The Court scheduled thathearing for November 16, 2016. The Court stated that it was not inclined to extend the deadlines or the hearing date and that the parties should plan accordingly. The Court also denied David's motion to extend time for discovery and his motion for more definite statement.
On September 19, 2016, IRS filed a motion to reschedule the hearing to November 14, 2016. The Court granted the motion without objection from David.
On October 11, 2016, David filed a motion to extend time to file a resistance. IRS objected. On October 12, 2016, David filed a motion to continue the summary judgment hearing to December or January. IRS objected to this motion as well.
On October 17, 2016, the Court held a telephonic hearing on David's two motions. The Court granted both of the motions over IRS' objection. The Court gave David until November 21, 2016 to file his resistance. The Court continued the hearing to December 12, 2016. During that hearing, the Court informed the parties that this was the final extension. The Court noted that it had accommodated David numerous times for extensions throughout the bankruptcy but that it would not grant any future motions to extend the deadlines or continue the hearing.
In spite of the Court's clear statement about no further extensions, on December 8, 2016, David filed a motion to continue the hearing to February 6, 2016. IRS objected. The Court nevertheless held a telephonic hearing on themotion to continue on December 9, 2016 to allow David to make his arguments. David stated only that h...
To continue reading
Request your trial