MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY  
attorney Michael E. Douglas Attorney at Law
  Personal Injury Attorney
  St. Paul Workers Compensation Lawyer work comp attorney
 > About Me
   :: My Commitment
   :: Our Community
   
 > Legal Practice Areas
  twin cities comsumer lawPersonal Injury
   :: Traffic Accidents
   :: Medical Malpractice
   :: Social Security Disability
   :: Premises Liability
   :: Wrongful Death
   :: Dog Bite
   :: Back/Spinal/Neck Injuries
   :: Whiplash
   :: Defective Medical Devices
   :: Defective Drugs
  Minnesota Personal InjuryWorkers Compensation
  St. Paul personal injuryConsumer Law
   :: Debt Collection
   :: Repossessions
   :: Foreclosures
   :: Loan, Credit, Banking
   :: Arbitration Agreements
   :: Deception and Fraud
   :: Auto Fraud / Lemon Law
   :: Warranties
   :: Predatory Lending
   
 > Contact Us
   :: Contact Us
 

Law Offices of Michael E. Douglas
P.O. Box 251551
Woodbury, Minnesota 55125-6551
   

 Saint Paul Lawyer
 
 mdouglas@injurylawtwincities.com

 

United States v. Hoklin et al.: US District Court : TAX - valid tax liens; government may foreclose; deficiencies versus self-assessment; notices

1Defendant Countrywide Funding Corporation has its own lien a mortgage on the
Hoklins home, and Countrywide and the government have stipulated that Countrywides lien is
superior to the governments. Stipulation [Docket No. 24]. Accordingly, if the Court orders the
house to be sold, Countrywide will be paid first and the government will be paid second.
Defendant the State of Minnesota has not appeared and has been found to be in default. Clerks
Entry of Default [Docket No. 29].
-1-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN G. HOKLIN, BARBARA U.
HOKLIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, and
COUNTRYWIDE FUNDING
CORPORATION,
Defendants.
Case No. 0:06-CV-2382 (PJS/RLE)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
LaQuita Taylor-Phillips, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TAX
DIVISION, for plaintiff.
John G. Hoklin and Barbara U. Hoklin, plaintiffs pro se.
Eric D. Cook, WILFORD & GESKE, PA, for defendant Countrywide Funding
Corporation.
Defendants John and Barbara Hoklin did not pay their federal income taxes in full for tax
years 1992 through 1997. In October 2001, they filed for bankruptcy protection, and their debts
including their back taxes were discharged in January 2002. But the bankruptcy discharge
released the Hoklins only from personal liability; it did not affect federal tax liens on their home.
The government now sues to foreclose on those liens.1
2The Courts summary of the tax laws in this section is not intended to be comprehensive,
and the Court deliberately skips over exceptions and fine points that are not germane to this case.
-2-
The government moved for summary judgment, and the Court referred the motion to
Chief Magistrate Judge Raymond L. Erickson pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). Judge
Erickson issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which he recommends denying the
governments motion in its entirety. The government objects.
The Court has reviewed de novo those portions of the R&R to which the government has
objected, as required by 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court sustains in part
the governments objection and grants partial summary judgment.
I. TAX LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Before turning to the facts of this case, the Court first sets out the relevant laws and
regulations.2 In this action to foreclose on tax liens, the key event on which the governments
case turns is the assessment by the IRS of taxes against the Hoklins. Such an assessment is
a precondition for a valid tax lien.
Sections 6321 and 6322 of Title 26 of the United States Code work together in
addressing the subject of tax liens. Under 6321, a tax lien arises by operation of law if any
person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, and the lien
amount equals the amount of unpaid taxes plus any interest, additional amount, addition to tax,
or assessable penalty, together with any costs that may accrue in addition thereto . . . . 26
U.S.C. 6321. The lien encumbers all property and rights to property, whether real or
personal, belonging to the taxpayer. Id. Under 6322, a tax lien shall arise at the time the
assessment is made and shall continue until the liability for the amount so assessed (or a
3All statutory sections referred to in the text are found in Title 26 of the United States
Code.
-3-
judgment against the taxpayer arising out of such liability) is satisfied or becomes unenforceable
by reason of lapse of time.3 26 U.S.C. 6322.
Under 6321 and 6322, then, if the government has demanded and assessed taxes, the
tax lien arises automatically upon assessment. Significantly, the government need not record the
lien to enforce it against the taxpayer. See Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) 5.17.2.2.1
(Dec. 14, 2007) (The lien is effective from the date the Government assesses the tax . . . . The
Service is not required to file a NFTL [i.e., notice of federal tax lien] in order for the tax lien to
attach.), available at http://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/ch17s02.html. But if the government wants
its lien to have priority against the claims of third parties, the government must record a notice of
the lien with the appropriate state agency. IRM 5.17.2.3.1 (The filing of a NFTL is not a step
required to give rise to or to perfect the lien against the taxpayer. The act of filing protects the
Governments right of priority as against certain third parties, typically a purchaser, holder of a
security interest, mechanics lienor, or judgment lien creditor.); 26 U.S.C. 6323(a), (f). The
notice of lien expires in roughly ten years unless it is refiled. IRM 5.17.2.3.3; 26 U.S.C.
6323(g); 26 C.F.R. 301.6323(g)-1.
Because the governments notice of lien operates only with respect to third parties, and
not with respect to the taxpayer, whether that notice expires or is renewed is irrelevant to the
validity of the lien against the taxpayer. But the lien does not endure in perpetuity; rather, under
6322, the lien can become[] unenforceable by reason of lapse of time. 26 U.S.C. 6322.
4Section 6501 also imposes time limits on tax collection, but only indirectly, by limiting
the period for making the underlying assessments. Generally, taxes must be assessed within
3 years after a tax return is filed. 26 U.S.C. 6501(a) (emphasis added). But 6501 does not
limit the duration of a lien, because a lien only arises after an assessment is made. If the
government fails to assess a tax liability within three years as required by 6501, a tax lien
cannot arise in the first place.
-4-
Section 6322 does not specify when a tax lien becomes unenforceable by reason of lapse
of time. Instead, the applicable time limits are found in 6502 and 6503.4 Section 6502
provides that, as a general rule, proceedings for collecting unpaid taxes must be brought within
10 years after the assessment of the tax . . . . 26 U.S.C. 6502(a)(1); see also United States v.
Dawes, 161 Fed. Appx. 742, 746-47 (10th Cir. 2005) (applying 6502 in action to foreclose tax
liens). Section 6503 further provides that this ten-year period is suspended under various
circumstances, such as when court proceedings prevent the government from collecting the
unpaid taxes. 26 U.S.C. 6503(a)(1). If a taxpayer files for bankruptcy, 6503(h) suspends the
collection period while the bankruptcy case prevents collection activities and for the following
six months. 26 U.S.C. 6503(h)(2).
To sum up, a tax lien is valid only if two things are true: (1) the lien has arisen because
an assessment has been made; and (2) the collection period has not expired that is, the lien
has not become[] unenforceable by reason of time. 26 U.S.C. 6322. Because the collection
periods expiration date follows from the assessment date, pinpointing the assessment date is
essential.
Roughly speaking, there are two types of assessments: deficiencies and what might be
called self-assessments. When a taxpayer files a return that shows how much he owes in
taxes, the amount shown on the return will be assessed by the government automatically under
5Simplified and translated into mathematical terms, 6211(a) provides:
Deficiency = Tax imposed
by IRS [ (Amount
shown on
return)
+
(Other amounts
previously
assessed)
Rebates ]
-5-
6201(a)(1). This can be called a self-assessment because it reflects the taxpayers own
assessment of how much he owes.
Deficiencies are different. A deficiency, as defined in 6211, is the amount of taxes
that the government contends a taxpayer owes beyond the amount that he reported as owing on
his return.5 26 U.S.C. 6211(a). Deficiencies are not assessed automatically. Rather, 6213
forbids the government from assessing a deficiency until the taxpayer has been mailed a formal
notice of the deficiency. 26 U.S.C. 6213(a). Once the government mails the notice, the
taxpayer has ninety days to file a petition in the United States Tax Court challenging the
deficiency. Id. If the taxpayer does not file a timely petition, then once the ninety-day postnotice
period has expired, the government can assess the deficiency. 26 U.S.C. 6213(c). If the
taxpayer does file a petition, then the deficiency cannot be assessed until the Tax Court
proceedings conclude. 26 U.S.C. 6213(a).
A taxpayer can, however, waive the notice requirements associated with deficiencies.
26 U.S.C. 6213(d). Those requirements can be waived only by a signed notice in writing filed
with the Secretary . . . . Id. One event that can lead to a taxpayers waiver of notice
requirements, and thus to the immediate assessment of a deficiency, is a field examination by
the IRS (i.e., an audit). If the government conducts an in-person audit of a taxpayers records
and determines that taxes are owing, the government will ask the taxpayer to agree to the
-6-
determination. 26 C.F.R. 601.105(b)(4). If the taxpayer does agree, the agreement is
evidenced by a waiver by the taxpayer of restrictions on assessment and collection of the
deficiency, or an acceptance of a proposed overassessment. Id.
Basically, then, there are three times that an assessment arises: (1) when a taxpayer files a
return showing taxes owing (the self-assessment); (2) after the government first determines that a
deficiency exists, then sends a notice of deficiency to the taxpayer, and the taxpayer then either
fails to challenge the deficiency or loses such a challenge; or (3) after the government determines
that a deficiency exists and the taxpayer then executes a signed waiver of the otherwiseapplicable
notice requirements.
As noted above, when taxes are assessed, a tax lien arises automatically in favor of the
government. If the collection period has not expired, the government may, under 7403,
enforce the lien through a civil suit in federal district court. 26 U.S.C. 7403. This action
brought against the Hoklins is such a suit.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure
materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A dispute
over a fact is material only if its resolution might affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A
dispute over a fact is genuine only if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for either party. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Union Pac. R.R., 469 F.3d 1158, 1162 (8th Cir.
6The government has also provided documents related to the its filing of notices of tax
lien with state agencies. Govt Exs. 15-24. As noted above, however, these notices operate only
with respect to third parties; they are irrelevant to the governments ability to enforce its tax liens
against the Hoklins.
-7-
2006). In considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the evidence and the
inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. Winthrop Res. Corp. v. Eaton Hydraulics, Inc., 361 F.3d 465, 468 (8th Cir.
2004).
B. The Asserted Tax Liens
The government seeks to foreclose tax liens that it contends arose when the Hoklins
failed to pay in full their taxes for tax years 1992 through 1997. The government has provided
only two types of evidence to support its summary-judgment motion: printouts of information in
the IRSs computer system and admissions from the Hoklins.6 Govt Exs. 1-14 [Docket No. 36].
Unfortunately, though, the government has not offered any affidavits or testimony explaining the
IRS printouts.
For each tax year, the government has provided two different IRS printouts. The first is
titled Certificate of Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified Matters (or Certificate of
Assessments for short) and is IRS Form 4340. Govt Exs. 1-6. The second is a transcript of
account for Form 1040 and seems to be a computerized record of what appeared on a given
years Form 1040, as well as a record of payments and charges related to that tax year. Govt
Exs. 7-12.
Judge Erickson recommended denying summary judgment because he found that the
government failed to establish that it had lawfully made the tax assessments underlying the liens
7The government has been neither clear nor thorough in describing the law and facts in
this case, forcing this Court to have to devote a great deal of time to trying to educate itself about
the tax laws and figure out the meaning of various exhibits. The government must bear in mind
that the tax laws are extremely complex, particularly to the uninitiated, which includes most
federal judges. The government must take care to explain the tax laws clearly and to provide a
full and adequately explained factual record, especially when, as here, the taxpayers are
representing themselves.
-8-
it seeks to foreclose. He considered two possibilities: (1) that the Hoklins unpaid taxes were
deficiencies; and (2) that the Hoklins unpaid taxes had been self-reported. Judge Erickson
found that if the unpaid taxes were deficiencies, the government was not entitled to summary
judgment because it did not establish that it sent the required notices of deficiencies. R&R at 12-
18. The government does not contest this point. Obj. at 4-5.
Judge Erickson also considered whether the Certificates of Assessment demonstrated that
the Hoklins had made a self-assessment by reporting the amount of their unpaid taxes on their
returns. R&R at 18-19. He concluded that the Certificates of Assessment were not sufficient to
establish that the Hoklins had self-reported their unpaid taxes. Id. It is not clear why Judge
Erickson discussed only the Certificates of Assessment and not the Form 1040 transcripts of
account. It should be noted, though, that the governments briefing before Judge Erickson, like
its briefing before this Court, was murky at best.7
In objecting to the R&R, the government first argues that this Court should reject the
R&R and grant summary judgment because the Hoklins failed to oppose its motion. Id. at 2-4.
The government would be correct if the Hoklins had the burden of proof. Summary judgment
may be granted against the nonmoving party when for whatever reason that party has
failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she
has the burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (emphasis added).
8The phrase Return Filed & Tax Assessed is in all capital letters in the Certificate of
Assessments. Throughout this order, to improve legibility, the Court uses upper- and lower-case
letters for phrases that are in all capital letters in original documents.
-9-
But the Hoklins do not have the burden of proof in this proceeding; they could sit mute at trial,
submitting no evidence and making no argument, and still prevail. If the Hoklins can win at trial
without saying anything, obviously they can defeat a summary judgment motion without saying
anything. To receive summary judgment, the government must establish that it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b), and, as the party with the burden of proof,
the government cannot establish that it is entitled to judgment by simply pointing out that the
party without the burden of proof has submitted no evidence or argument.
The government also argues that it was not required to send notices of deficiency and that
Judge Erickson erred in finding otherwise. Obj. at 4-6. Specifically, the government contends
that because the Hoklins self-reported certain amounts on their tax returns and agreed to certain
other amounts, notices of deficiency were not required as a prerequisite to assessment. Id. at 5.
The Court agrees in part with the government. Because different tax years raise different issues
including some important issues that the government did not address in its moving papers or
its objection the Court discusses tax years 1992, 1993, and 1994 separately, and tax years
1995 through 1997 as a group.
1. Tax Year 1992
The IRS Certificate of Assessments for tax year 1992 shows an amount of ,493 labeled
with the words Return Filed & Tax Assessed.8 Govt Ex. 1 at 2. Two dates are associated
with this entry. In the left margin, in the column labeled Date, the date August 18, 1993
appears. In the right margin, in the column labeled Assessment Date, the date September 20,
9The Hoklins wrote this is correct in response to the governments request for an
admission that they failed to pay in full the ,493 in federal income taxes assessed against
[them] for the 1992 year. Govt Ex. 14 at 2. But the governments documentary evidence
establishes conclusively that the Hoklins did pay this amount in full. Govt Ex. 7 at 2-3.
-10-
1993 appears. The Court agrees with Judge Erickson that this entry, by itself, does not clearly
show that the Hoklins self-reported on their Form 1040 that they owed ,493. R&R at 18-19.
The transcript of account for tax year 1992, however, clarifies matters. (Again, Judge
Erickson did not discuss this, or any other, transcript of account.) That transcript, like the
Certificate of Assessments, shows an amount of ,493, but the amount is labeled Tax Per
Return. Govt Ex. 7 at 2 (emphasis added). The transcript identifies August 18, 1993 as the
Return Due Date or Return Received Date (Whichever is Later) and September 20, 1993 as the
Processing Date. Id. (emphasis added). The Court finds that a reasonable jury would have to
conclude, based on the Certificate of Assessments and the transcript of account taken together,
that the Hoklins self-reported ,493 in taxes owing on their 1992 return. The government was
therefore not required to send a notice of deficiency before assessing this amount, and a lien
arose on September 20, 1993, when the return was processed and the taxes were assessed.
This is not the end of the matter, however, because the governments evidence
specifically, the transcript of account establishes that the Hoklins paid this amount in full,
plus associated interest and penalties, by May 22, 1995.9 Id. at 2-3. The ,493 on the Hoklins
return therefore cannot be the basis for the tax lien that the government now seeks to foreclose.
Instead, the basis of the governments lien for tax year 1992 is an amount of additional
taxes ostensibly assessed by the government in May 1995 after the IRS audited the Hoklins. The
government glossed over this important detail in its complaint and in the summary-judgment
-11-
brief it submitted to Judge Erickson. In both, the government asserted that it assessed ,493 in
taxes for tax year 1992 and that the Hoklins still owed taxes for that year, but the government
failed to indicate that the balance owing from 1992 relates not to the original ,493 but to a
later ostensible assessment. See Compl. 8; Br. Supp. U.S. Mot. for S.J. (Govt SJ Mem.)
1-2 [Docket No. 36]. This is a crucial distinction, and the government should have brought it
to Judge Ericksons attention.
Only in its objection to the R&R did the government clarify that it is trying to foreclose a
lien based on its purported assessment in 1995 of additional taxes for 1992. Obj. at 5-6. The
government, without citing any law, says that the IRS was not required to issue a notice of
deficiency with respect to the additional amount because it was an agreed audit deficiency . . .
. Obj. at 6.
It is somewhat unclear from the Certificate of Assessments for 1992 exactly what the IRS
did in 1995. There is a transaction on the form labeled a Quick Assessment, in the amount of
,281. Govt Ex. 1 at 4. There is no date in the Date column to the immediate left of the
entry for this Quick Assessment transaction, but in the Assessment Date column associated
with the transaction, the date April 18, 1995 appears. Id. On the same page, there is a
transaction labeled Additional tax assessed by examination[;] agreed audit deficiency prior to
30 or 60 day letter, but the corresponding transaction amount is , the date in the Assessment
Date column is May 22, 1995, and there is no date in the Date column to the left of the entry.
Id.
The related entries in the transcript of account for 1992 are consistent and equally
unhelpful. An entry that reads Additional tax assessed by examination bears the date May 22,
-12-
1995 and an amount of . Govt Ex. 7 at 3. Another entry that reads Quick assessment bears
the date April 18, 1995 and an amount of ,281. Id.
The government, in its objection to the R&R, says that these additional taxes were
assessed on May 22, 1995. Obj. at 6. If so, why is the Quick Assessment of the amount dated
April 18, 1995 on both the Certificate of Assessments and the transcript of account? The
government has offered no competent evidence about how to interpret these documents.
More importantly, the government has offered no evidence that it complied with
6213(d) and secured a written waiver from the Hoklins of the otherwise-applicable
requirement that the government send them a notice of deficiency with respect to the additional
,281 in taxes ostensibly assessed on May 22, 1995. The only evidence related to this
requirement is the phrase on the Certificate of Assessments, Additional tax assessed by
examination[;] agreed audit deficiency prior to 30 or 60 day letter. Govt Ex. 1 at 4. This
phrase does not establish beyond dispute that the Hoklins waived, in writing, their right to
receive a notice of deficiency.
Under IRS regulations, if a taxpayer agrees with the results of an audit, the examiner
will invite the taxpayer to execute either Form 870 or another appropriate agreement form. . . . If
the agreed case involves income . . . taxes, the agreement is evidenced by a waiver by the
taxpayer of restrictions on assessment and collection of the deficiency, or an acceptance of a
proposed overassessment. 26 C.F.R. 601.105(b)(4). Despite the regulatory and statutory
requirement that the IRS secure a written waiver, no such waiver has been provided by the
government to support its motion.
10Judge Erickson understood the government to be contending that the collection period
was extended when the government refiled its notices of federal tax liens with the state. R&R
at 4. As explained above, however, those notices affect only the validity of a tax lien with
respect to third parties. See IRM 5.17.2.3.1. Refiling a notice of tax lien thus does not extend
the ten-year collection period, which can be extended only in accordance with 6503.
-13-
Finally, even if the Hoklins did execute a written waiver with respect to the ,281 in
taxes imposed in 1995, resulting in the assessment of those taxes at that time, the government
has failed to establish that the lien for those taxes has not become[] unenforceable by reason of
time. 26 U.S.C. 6322.
The government filed this suit on June 14, 2006. If the government assessed the
additional taxes for tax year 1992 on May 22, 1995, then under 6502, the ten-year period for
collecting those taxes expired on May 22, 2005, unless that period was suspended under 6503.
26 U.S.C. 6502-03. The period was necessarily suspended during the Hoklins bankruptcy
and for the following six months under 6503(h), but the bankruptcy case itself lasted only five
months. See In re Hoklin, No. 01-44519, Docket Report (Bankr. D. Minn.) (petition filed Oct.
17, 2001; case closed February 21, 2002). By the Courts calculations, the bankruptcy resulted
in a suspension of 308 days, and the governments collection period therefore expired on March
26, 2006, roughly two and a half months before this suit was filed. The government has not even
attempted to establish that the collection period has not expired under 6502.10
2. Tax Year 1993
For tax year 1993, the Certificate of Assessments together with the transcript of account
establish that the Hoklins self-reported that they owed ,078 in taxes on their Form 1040.
Govt Exs. 2, 8. The records also establish, however, that unlike with respect to their 1992
taxes the Hoklins did not pay these taxes in full. Instead, based on the transcript of account, it
-14-
appears that they still owed ,685.40 toward this original amount (plus associated penalties and
interest). Govt Ex. 8. Because the government was not required to send a notice of deficiency
with respect to these taxes, they were assessed on September 26, 1994, when the IRS processed
the Hoklins return, and a tax lien for this amount arose then.
The government is also trying to collect additional taxes for tax year 1993. When the
IRS audited the Hoklins returns in 1995, it imposed additional taxes for both tax year 1992 (as
discussed above) and tax year 1993. For tax year 1993, the government determined that the
Hoklins owed an additional ,655 in taxes. Govt Ex. 2 at 3; Govt Ex. 8 at 3.
The facts and legal issues related to this ostensible assessment of additional taxes are
identical to the facts and legal issues discussed above in connection with the assessment for tax
year 1992 made after the audit in 1995. For one thing, the government failed to expressly
identify that its claim was based on this assessment until it objected to the R&R. More
importantly, the government has not established that the Hoklins executed a written waiver of
their right to receive a notice of deficiency with respect to these additional taxes.
Further, the government has not established that the collection period with respect to tax
year 1993 has not expired under 6502. It is quite probable that, with respect to the ,685.40
balance remaining from the Hoklins self-reported taxes, the collection period has expired,
rendering the associated lien unenforceable. The original tax amount was assessed on
September 26, 1994, and the collection period would thus have expired on September 26, 2004.
To collect these taxes in this suit by foreclosing on its tax lien, the government would have to
establish that the ten-year collection period was suspended for roughly eighteen months. No
evidence of such a lengthy suspension appears in the record.
-15-
With respect to the additional ,655 in taxes imposed in May 1995, it is also possible
that the collection period for the governments lien if a lien arose has expired. As
explained above in connection with tax year 1992, to foreclose on a lien for the additional taxes
assessed in May 1995, the government would need to establish both that the taxes were properly
assessed and that the ten-year collection period was suspended for a little over a year. It has
established neither of those things.
3. Tax Year 1994.
For tax year 1994, the Certificate of Assessments together with the transcript of account
establish that the Hoklins self-reported that they owed ,952 in taxes on their Form 1040.
Govt Exs. 3, 9. The government assessed this amount when it processed the Hoklins return on
August 28, 1995. Govt Ex. 9 at 2.
The government was not required to file a notice of deficiency with respect to this
amount. Further, the undisputed facts establish that the ten-year collection period did not expire
before this suit was filed. Under 6503(h), the collection period was suspended at least from
October 17, 2001 (when the Hoklins filed their bankruptcy petition) through August 21, 2002
(six months after the case was closed), for a total of 308 days. The ten-year collection period
would have ended on August 28, 2005, but because it was suspended, the period ended 308 days
later, on July 2, 2006. The government filed its complaint in this case roughly two weeks earlier,
on June 14, 2006.
The government is therefore entitled to foreclose on its lien with respect to unpaid taxes,
plus interest and penalties, for tax year 1994.
4. Tax Years 1995 Through 1997
-16-
Tax year 1995 is similar to tax year 1994. The governments evidence establishes that
the Hoklins self-reported that they owed ,319 in taxes for tax year 1995 and that the
government assessed this amount on April 15, 1996. Govt Exs. 4, 10. Accordingly, no notice
of deficiency was required for this year. Further, although the ten-year collection period would
have expired on April 15, 1996, the period was suspended because of the Hoklins bankruptcy
case and thus had not expired when this suit was filed. The government is therefore entitled to
foreclose on its lien with respect to unpaid taxes, plus interest and penalties, for tax year 1995.
For tax year 1996, the governments evidence establishes that the Hoklins self-reported
that they owed ,014 in taxes for the year and that the government assessed this amount on
November 24, 1997. Govt Exs. 5, 11. No notice of deficiency was required for this year, and
this suit was filed before the ten-year collection period expired. The government is therefore
entitled to foreclose on its lien with respect to unpaid taxes, plus interest and penalties, for tax
year 1996.
For tax year 1997, the governments evidence establishes that the Hoklins self-reported
that they owed ,672 in taxes for the year and that the government assessed this amount on
June 1, 1998. Govt Exs. 6, 12. No notice of deficiency was required for this year, and this suit
was filed before the ten-year collection period expired. The government is therefore entitled to
foreclose on its lien with respect to unpaid taxes, plus interest and penalties, for tax year 1997.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court
SUSTAINS IN PART the governments objection [Docket No. 48] and DECLINES TO ADOPT
-17-
Judge Ericksons Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 47]. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. The motion of the United States for summary judgment [Docket No. 34] is
GRANTED IN PART as follows:
a. The government has valid tax liens against the property of defendants
John G. Hoklin and Barbara U. Hoklin with respect to unpaid taxes, plus
interest and penalties, for tax years 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997.
b. The government is entitled to foreclose on those liens against the Hoklins
real property at 5014 Vine Hill Road, Excelsior, Minnesota 55331, which
is legally described as follows: Lot 7, Block 1, Forest Hill Farm,
according to the recorded plat thereof, and situated in Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
2. The motion of the United States for summary judgment [Docket No. 34] is
DENIED in all other respects.
Dated: July 2 , 2008 s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge
 

 
 
 

  What day were you injured?

  / /


  What caused your injuries?
Traffic/Bicycle Accident
Work-Related Injury
Wrongful Death
Dog Bite
Slip and Fall
Other:


  How have your injuries affected

  your life?

 


  What kinds of medical care
  professionals have you seen?

 


  What has your treatment cost?

 

  Is Insurance Involved?
My insurance may cover
        this.

Someone else's insurance
        may cover this.

I already filed a claim.
I rejected a settlement
        offer.

I accepted a settlement
        offer.

  Were there any witnesses?
Bystanders Witnessed This.
Police Responded and Filed
        a Police Report

Police Responded but Did
        Not File a Police Report


 

 

          By visiting this page or clicking the
  "submit" button above, you agree
  that you have read and accept this   "disclaimer".
 
Copyright © Michael E. Douglas, Attorney at Law, Saint Paul MN. All Rights Reserved.
Minnesota Law Firm representing Personal Injury, Car / Auto Accident, Workers Compensation, Medical Malpractice, Social Security Disability claims.
Dedicated to Injured Workers, Victims of Negligence, Car Accidents, Victims of Fraud, and those in need of legal assistance.