Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08193/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08193-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1340 Recovery of Erroneous Refund

---

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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Sheila Young; Deane Young; Kennith 

Defoor; Accurate Consulting, LLC; and D4 

Accounting, Consulting, Tax Services, Inc., 

Defendants.

No. CV-10-8193-PCT-DGC

ORDER 

 The United States filed a complaint for injunctive relief on October 4, 2010, 

alleging Defendants promote fraudulent tax schemes and have prepared hundreds of 

frivolous tax returns resulting in the issuance of more than two million dollars in 

erroneous refunds. Doc. 1. On October 15, 2010, each individual Defendant filed an 

“affidavit of notary presentment” (Docs. 5, 6, 7), which were construed as motions to 

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The motions were denied in an order dated December 9, 

2010. Doc. 11. 

 The individual Defendants have filed a new motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 

12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 13. The government has 

responded. Doc. 14. No party has requested oral argument. The motion will be denied. 

 As previously explained (Doc. 11), the Court clearly has subject matter 

jurisdiction over this federal tax case (see Doc. 1 ¶¶ 3-4), and the Court has personal 

jurisdiction over Defendants as they are residents or citizens of Arizona (see id. ¶¶ 6-10; 

Docs. 5, 6, 7 at 2). The complaint more than satisfies the minimal pleading requirements 

Case 3:10-cv-08193-DGC Document 19 Filed 03/15/11 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

of Rule 8, and the factual allegations, when accepted as true, state a plausible claim to 

relief. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The motion to dismiss 

will be denied. 

 As a “federal corporation,” Defendants argue, the United States lacks standing to 

file a civil complaint against “living, breathing, people who are in possession of a soul.” 

Doc. 13 at 1-2. Defendants further argue that the complaint must be dismissed because 

they are in receipt of no government document showing a “violation of a known legal 

duty.” Id. at 3. These arguments are wholly without merit. 

 Defendants shall file answers to the complaint within 14 days from the date of this 

order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4). Defendants are reminded (see Doc. 11) that the 

corporate Defendants may file an answer and otherwise appear in this case only through 

licensed counsel. See Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 

506 U.S. 194, 201-202 (1993); D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 

972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004). 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) is denied. 

 2. Defendants shall file answers to the complaint within 14 days from the date 

of this order. The corporate Defendants may file an answer only through licensed 

counsel. 

 3. The Court will set a case management conference by separate order. 

 Dated this 15th day of March, 2011. 

Case 3:10-cv-08193-DGC Document 19 Filed 03/15/11 Page 2 of 2