Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-08004/USCOURTS-ca10-91-08004-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Howard P. Egbert
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uaited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

AUG 7 1991 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

HOWARD P. EGBERT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-8004 

(D. C. No. 90-0084J) 

(D. Wyo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P . 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

The United States commenced this action to reduce its 

outstanding federal income tax assessments against Mr. Egbert to 

judgment. Mr. Egbert filed what amounted to a general denial. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-8004 Document: 010110131424 Date Filed: 08/07/1991 Page: 1 
Both parties moved for summary judgment 

entered summary judgment for Plaintiff. Mr. 

se. 

and the trial court 

Egbert appeals pro 

The significant facts are undisputed. Mr. Egbert failed to 

file federal income tax returns for the 1978 through 1983 tax 

years. The IRS sent Mr. Egbert statutory notice of deficiency for 

the 1978 through 1980 tax years. Mr. Egbert unsuccessfully 

contested his liability for these deficiencies in the tax court. 

He then appealed to this court, which affirmed the tax court and 

ruled the appeal frivolous (No. 84-1248, Order & Judgment filed 

Feb. 28, 1985). The IRS then sent notice of deficiency for the 

1981 through 1983 tax years. Mr. Egbert failed to file any 

petition with the tax court. Subsequently, the IRS entered its 

assessment for these tax years. 

The Government then filed this civil action to reduce to 

judgment Mr. Egbert's liabilities for the tax years 1978 through 

1983. To support its motion for summary judgment, the Government 

attached a Certificate of Assessments and Payments (Form 4340) for 

the 1978 through 1983 tax years. Mr. Egbert filed no evidentiary 

materials in opposition and instead argued the Certificate was not 

proof of any procedurally valid assessment and was inadmissible. 

Mr. Egbert also charged the Government failed to give him proper 

notice of the assessments pursuant to§ 6303(a) of the Internal 

Revenue Code and therefore this action was precluded. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-8004 Document: 010110131424 Date Filed: 08/07/1991 Page: 2 
The trial court ruled the Certificate was presumptive proof 

that valid assessments were made for the tax years at issue and 

held the tax court's decision res judicata for the 1978 through 

1980 tax years. The trial court concluded that as Mr. Egbert had 

failed to offer any contrary evidence for the 1981 through 1983 

tax years, summary judgment should be entered. 

Mr. Egbert raises two contentions. 

trial court erred in applying the doctrine 

First, he asserts the 

of res judicata and 

second, he contends the Certificate was not admissible evidence. 

Concerning the res judicata issue, Mr. Egbert argues the law 

demands that taxes can be assessed only after the tax court has 

adjudicated the amounts owing. Mr. Egbert cites to us§ 6213 of 

the Internal Revenue Code, which provides no levy or collection 

may be made until the decision of the tax court is final. What 

Mr. Egbert's argument ignores is that the Certificate is 

presumptive proof, by its own terms, that the required assessments 

had been made. United Staes v. Chila, 871 F.2d 1015, 1017-18 

(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 498 (1989.) In a summary 

judgment context, Mr. Egbert had the evidentiary obligation of 

showing this Certificate to be factually wrong, thus creating a 

question of fact for the trial court. In addition, the tax court 

decision is res judicata to all matters therein decided as well as 

all matters that could have been decided. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-8004 Document: 010110131424 Date Filed: 08/07/1991 Page: 3 
\ 

Concerning the evidentiary issue, the Certificate is 

admissible. In Holland v. United States, 209 F.2d 516, 520-21 

(10th Cir. 1954), this court so held. This panel has no authority 

to overrule this precedent, which Mr. Egbert argues was 

erroneously decided. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-8004 Document: 010110131424 Date Filed: 08/07/1991 Page: 4