Case ID: f-appx_130/html/0594-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, v. Matthew BYOCK; Thea Byock, Appellants.
    No. 04-2726.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) May 2, 2005.
    Decided May 11, 2005.
    
      John A. Nolet, United States Department of Justice Tax Division, Washington, DC, for United States of America.
    Matthew Byock, Red Bank, NJ, pro se.
    Thea Byock, Red Bank, NJ, pro se.
    Before ALITO, SMITH and BECKER, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Matthew and Thea Byock appeal from the District Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the United States. We will affirm.

In June 2002, the United States filed a complaint in the District Court, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7403, to reduce to judgment unpaid federal income tax assessments against Matthew and Thea Byock for the taxable years 1991-1999. The Byoeks filed several motions to dismiss, but the motions were denied. After discovery was completed, the United States filed a motion for summary judgment, which the District Court granted. The Byoeks timely appealed.

We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of a motion for summary judgment is plenary. Coolspring Stone Supply, Inc. v. Am. States Life Ins. Co., 10 F.3d 144, 146 (3d Cir.1993). A grant of summary judgment will be affirmed if “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). ‘We review the facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered.” Coolspring, 10 F.3d at 146. Defeating a motion for summary judgment requires the non-moving party to “make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of [each] element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

An assessment of taxes by the Commissioner of the IRS is presumptively correct. See United States v. Vespe, 868 F.2d 1328, 1331 (3d Cir.1989); see also United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 440-41, 96 S.Ct. 3021, 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976). Here, the United States submitted certified copies of the IRS assessments against the Byoeks. The Byoeks offered no evidence to suggest that the assessments were incorrect or to otherwise dispute the assessments. The District Court concluded that the certified documents were sufficient to support granting the motion for summary judgment. We agree. On appeal, as in the District Court, the Byoeks do not dispute that they owe the back taxes. Instead, they focus solely on their belief that this complaint was filed as a personal vendetta and that the IRS made these assessments only after Matthew Byock reported an IRS employee to the District Director’s Office. This allegation has no bearing on the Byoeks’ liability for taxes owed.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the United States. 
      
      . In their answer to the United States complaint, the Byoeks raised additional arguments. These issues were not raised on appeal and, therefore, are considered waived. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir.1993).