Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01962/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01962-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7403 Suit to Enforce Federal Tax Lien

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK LINN BRYAN et al.,

Defendants.

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

ORDER

On October 29, 2024, Defendant Mark Linn Bryan filed an Amended Motion to 

Dismiss (“Amended Motion”) challenging this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. (Am. 

Mot. Dismiss (ECF No. 163).) The Court previously denied Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss (ECF No. 160) brought on the same basis. (ECF No. 161.) Therefore, this 

Court construes Defendant’s Amended Motion as a motion for reconsideration.

Defendant’s Amended Motion will be DENIED. Defendant has not 

demonstrated that reconsideration is warranted by (1) presenting newly discovered 

evidence, (2) showing that the Court committed clear error, or (3) establishing that 

there has been an intervening change in the controlling law. See Marlyn 

Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009); 

see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j). As with Defendant’s prior Motions to Dismiss (see ECF 

Nos. 80, 85, 92, 93, 94, 96, 118, 160), Defendant’s argument is difficult to understand. 

From what the Court can decipher, Defendant argues that the Supreme Court’s recent 

Case 2:22-cv-01962-DJC-AC Document 165 Filed 11/04/24 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

decision in Moore v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1680 (2024) clarified that federal income 

tax is an indirect tax under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, not a direct 

tax authorized under the Sixteenth Amendment. (Am. Mot. Dismiss at 3.) Defendant 

argues “[t]here is absolutely no constitutional subject-matter jurisdiction granted to 

enforce the federal personal income tax as a non-apportioned direct tax under 

alleged authority of the 16th Amendment, rather than as a uniform indirect tax under 

authority of Article I, Section 8, clauses 1 and 18.” (Id. at 8.)

In Moore, the Supreme Court explained that Article I of the Constitution affords 

Congress broad power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” which

includes two great classes of taxes—direct taxes and indirect taxes. 144 S. Ct. at 1687 

(quoting Art. I, § 8, cl. 1). “Generally speaking, direct taxes are those taxes imposed 

on persons or property.” Id. “By contrast, indirect taxes are the familiar federal taxes 

imposed on activities or transactions,” including “income taxes.” Id. at 1688. 

“Because income taxes are indirect taxes, they are permitted under Article I, §8 

without apportionment.” Id. The Sixteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1913,

expressly confirmed that taxes on income—including taxes on income from property—

are indirect taxes that need not be apportioned. Id.

Defendant does not explain how the Supreme Court’s holding supports his 

conclusion that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction here. Congress has the 

power to levy federal personal income taxes, whether considered direct or indirect,

under the Sixteenth Amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. XVI (“The Congress shall 

have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, 

without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or 

enumeration.”); see also Jones v. IRS, No. CV 12-00022-BU-DLC, 2012 WL 5334631, at 

*2 (D. Mont. Oct. 26, 2012) (“Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, 

whether an income tax is a direct or indirect tax is immaterial.”). The United States of 

America has alleged Defendant did not pay his federal income taxes from 2014–2017

in violation of federal tax law. (First Am. Compl. (ECF No. 76) ¶¶ 19–25.) Federal 

Case 2:22-cv-01962-DJC-AC Document 165 Filed 11/04/24 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

district courts have original jurisdiction of cases encompassing disputes “arising under 

the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addition, 

the United States asserts jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7402 (granting original 

jurisdiction to the district court to render judgments necessary or appropriate for the 

enforcement of the internal revenue laws) and § 7403 (directing that a civil action be 

filed in the district court to enforce the United States’ tax liens), as well as 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1340 (granting original jurisdiction to the district courts over any civil action arising 

under the Internal Revenue Code) and § 1345 (granting original jurisdiction to the 

district courts over any civil action commenced by the United States). (First Am. 

Compl. ¶ 3.) This is sufficient at this stage to establish subject-matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Amended Motion will be denied.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 163) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2024 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DJC4 – Bryan22cv1962.MotReconsideration

Case 2:22-cv-01962-DJC-AC Document 165 Filed 11/04/24 Page 3 of 3