Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01009/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01009-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Recovery of IRS Tax

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNICO SERVICES INC.,

No. 2:07-CV-1009-MCE-KJM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THE UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

On May 29, 2007, Unico Services, Inc. filed the instant tax

refund suit for federal employment taxes, penalties and interest.

On November 16, 2007, the United States filed a Counterclaim for

unpaid federal employment taxes and statutory additions for other

time periods as well as to reduce to judgement corporate income

tax liabilities.

On December 12, 2006, Dean Gordon Potter filed a voluntary

Chapter 11 petition with the United States Bankruptcy Court,

Northern District of California. 

///

Case 2:07-cv-01009-MCE -KJM Document 31 Filed 01/31/08 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

At all relevant times, Potter was allegedly Unico's President,

majority shareholder, and key employee. Per the Motion to

Transfer, immediately before he implemented an Offshore

Employment Leasing arrangement, (“OEL”) Potter owned, directly or

indirectly, 100 percent of Unico's stock. The Motion to Transfer

also alleges Potter is currently the sole shareholder of Unico.

On April 9, 2007, Potter filed an Adversary Complaint in a

bankruptcy case against the United States seeking a refund of

income taxes with respect to Potter’s 1998 income tax year. On

or about June 28, 2007, Potter filed in his bankruptcy case an

Objection to Claim of the Internal Revenue Service. Collectively

the Objection to Claim and the Adversary Complaint will be

referred to as the “Potter Federal Tax Disputes.”

On September 7, 2007, the United States filed with the

Bankruptcy Court a Motion to Withdraw Reference and to Transfer

Venue of the Potter Federal Tax Disputes to this Court. The

Motion ultimately sought to have the Potter Federal Tax Disputes

tried in conjunction with the refund case pending before this

Court. The United States’ Motion was referred to the District

Court. The District Court entered an order granting the United

States’ Motion to Withdraw the reference to the Potter Federal

Tax Disputes but denying, without prejudice, the transfer of the

Potter Federal Tax Disputes to this Court based on deference to

the debtor’s choice of forum.

The United States now seeks to transfer venue of this case

to the Northern District of California. 

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-01009-MCE -KJM Document 31 Filed 01/31/08 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

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

3

Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Non-opposition to this Motion.1

Further, the Northern District Court recommended the United

States seek to have this case transferred.

In a civil action brought by a corporation against the United

States, venue is proper in the judicial district in which the

corporation’s principal place of business is located. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1402(a)(2). Unico’s principal place of business is in Benicia,

California, which is in the Eastern District. Section 1402(a)(2)

also provides that “a district court, for the convenience of the

parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, may transfer

any such action to any other district or division.”

The Court finds that the interest of justice will be better

served if this case and the Potter Federal Tax Disputes are

resolved in one forum. The Court finds this will eliminate the

danger of inconsistent rulings and serve the interests of judicial

economy. In view of Unico’s Notice of Non-opposition to this

Motion to Transfer, the Motion to Transfer is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2008

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01009-MCE -KJM Document 31 Filed 01/31/08 Page 3 of 3