N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. GEOR GE STEVEN PAR KER , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 10-56722

D.C . No. 3:07-c v-01969-H-AJB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M arily n L. Huff, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C LIFTON, N.R . SM ITH, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Ge orge Ste ve n Parke r a

ppe a ls the distric t

c ourt’ s gra

n t of sum m ary judgm e nt to theUnite d State s in its suit se e k ing to re duc e to judgm e nt Pa rke r’ s fe de ra l inc om e tax lia

bility . R e pre s e nting him se l f on a p pe a l, Pa rke r c la i m s tha

t he 

# FIL ED JUN 11 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).introduc e d e vide nc e c re a ting a tria ble issue of fa c t re spe c ting (1) the gove rnm e nt’ s ta x a sse ssm e nt, (2) whe the r this a sse ssm e nt (if va lid) wa s disc ha rge d in his pe rsona l ba

nkruptc y , a

nd (3) the va lidity

of the gove rnm e nt’ s lie ns on his pre
ba nkruptc y prope rty . W e re vie w Parke r’ s a

ppe a l from

the grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt de novo, vie w ing the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora ble to Pa rke r. Palme r v . C

omm’r , 116 F.3d 1309, 1311 (9th C ir. 1997). The re in, we m ust de te rm ine whe the r the re are any

“ ge nuine issue s of m a te ria l fa c t pre c luding sum m a ry judgm e nt” in fa

vor of the Unite d State s. Id. I. In a c olle c tion c a se brought by the Unite d State s to re duc e its ta x a sse ssm e nts to judgme n t , “ the g ove rnm e n t be ars the initia l burde n of proof.” Id. at 1312. The gove rnm e nt’ s C e rtific a te s of Asse ssm e nts a nd Pa y m e n ts sa tisfie d this initia l burde n he re and c re a te d a pre sum ption of c orre c tne s s. Id. at 1311. The
am ounts a

re supporte d by

the la ngua ge of the supe rse ding inform at ion to whic h Parke r ple a d, s e e Unite d State s v . C azare s , 121 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 1997) (“ W e have c onsiste ntly

he ld tha t a de fe nda nt's ple a of guilty c onc l usive l y

a dm its
a ll fa c tua l a lle gations of the indic t m e nt.” ), Parke r’ s c oworke rs’ te s tim onie s, his own te stim ony , and sta

t e m e nts by

Parke r’ s attorne y

at the ple a

he a ring, se e Unite d -2-State

s v . He rnande

z -He rnande

z , 431 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ [W ] e have re pe a te dly

he ld tha t c rim ina l de fe nda

n ts a re bound by

the a dm issions of fa c t m a de by the ir c ounse l in the i r pre se nc e and with the ir a uthority .” ). Furthe r, Parke r ha s fa ile d to provide e vide n c e showing “ that the de fic ie nc y wa s a rbitra ry or e rrone ous.” Hardy

v . C omm’r , 181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th C ir. 1999). His a tte m pt to
ra ise a ge nuine issue of fa c t, by arguing tha

t the ba la n c e of his loa

n a c c ount with Arc we l (the pa

rtia l ba sis of theIR S’ s a sse ssm e nt c a lc ulations) wa s ina c c ura te , fa ils without e vide nc e to support the argum e nt. Se e Bradford v . C omm’r , 796 F.2d 303, 306 (9th C i r. 1986) (An a ppe a l will ge ne ra lly

be unsuc c e ssful “ whe re the taxpa y e r ke pt ina de quate re c ords . . ., a nd the n re lie d m a inly

on te stim ony

to c ha lle nge the C om m issione r’ s re c onstruc tion of inc om e .” ). Thus, the re is no ge nuine fa c tua l dispute re spe c ting theam o unts Pa rke r owe s the gove rnm e n t. 1 II. A de btor’ s disc ha

rge in ba nkruptc y m ay be e xc e pte d “ for a ta x . . . with
re spe c t to whic h the de btor m a de a fra udule nt re turn or willfully atte m pte d in a ny m anne r to e va de or de fe a t suc h tax.” 11 U.S.C . § 523(a )(1)(C ). The gove rnm e nt
m ust de m onstra

t e “ (1) a knowing fa lse hood; (2) a n inte nt to e v a de taxe s; a

nd (3) a n

1 The gove rnm e nt’ s C e rtific a te s of Asse ssm e nts a nd Pa ym e nts show Pa

rke r fa ile d to re port $580,459 of inc om e in 1986 a n d at le a st $633,799 in 1987. -3-unde rpay

m e nt of ta

x.” C onsidine v . Unite d State

s , 683 F.2d 1285, 1286 & n.1 (9th C ir. 1982). “ [E] xc e ptions to discha rge should bestric tly

c onstrue d a ga inst a

n obje c ting c re ditor a

nd in fa vor of the de btor.” Snok

e v . Riso (In reRiso) , 978 F.2d 1151, 1154 (9th C ir. 1992). Parke r’ s guilty

ple a to a viola tion of 26 U.S.C . § 7206(1) e stops him from
c la im ing tha

t the re t urns we re not willfully

fa lse and did not re sult in a n unde rpay m e nt of ta

x. C onsidine , 683 F.2d a

t 1287. Howe ve r, his “ c onvic tion unde r § 7260(1), without m

ore , doe s not e sta

blish fra udule nt inte nt.” Id. ; Mc

K ay v . Unite d State s , 957 F.2d 689, 691 (9th C ir. 1992). R e ga rding inte nt, Pa

rke r a lle ge s a

m a te ria l fa c tua l dispute . Although his te stim ony re spe c ting his c orporate loa n a c c ount a

nd its ba la

nc e ha s be e n inc o nsiste nt, Pa

rke r ha s c onsiste ntly

te stifie d tha

t he e m be z z le d the funds to sa

ve Arc we l from

involunta

ry ba nkruptc y and tha t he did not a c t with a

n inte nt to e va de ta xe s. This vie wof the e vide nc e m ay be re a sona

bly infe rre d from

the re c ord. Se e Prov e nz , v . Mille r , 102 F.3d 1478, 1489 (9th C ir. 1996) (“ C a se s whe re inte n t is a prim ary issue ge ne ra lly

are ina ppropria t e for sum

m ary judgm e nt unle ss all
re a s ona ble infe re nc e s tha

t c ould be drawn from

the e vide nc e de fe a t the pla intiff's
c la im .” )
. Furthe r, the fa c t tha t this e vide nc e ’ s ba sis is primarily Parke r’ s te stim ony doe s not we ake n its re le va nc e , be c a use it is m ore tha

n c onc l usory , se e id. at 1490- -4-91, a

nd c re dibility

de te rm inat ions a

re prohibite d at the sum

m ary judgm e nt sta ge . Ande rson v . Libe rty

Lobby , Inc
. , 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The re fore , the distric t c ourt should not ha

ve gran te d sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the Unite d State s unde r § 523(a )(1)(C ) for an e xc e ption to discha rge . Se e Prov e nz , 102 F.3d a t 1489. III. Parke r’ s tax lia

bility and pe na ltie s for 1984 a s we l l a s his pe na l tie s (a nd inte re s t on those pe n a ltie s) for the 1986 a nd 1987 ta

x y e ar we re disc h a

rge d by the 2009 ba nkruptc y a c tion. Though this disc

ha rge re lie ve d Parke r from pe rsona l lia bility , the pre p e tition ta

x lie ns on his property

re m a in e nforc e a

ble a fte r the disc ha rge . De w snup v . Timm , 502 U.S. 410, 417–18 (1992); Isom v . Unite d State s (In reIsom) , 901 F.2d 744, 745 (9th C ir. 1990). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt to the gove rnm e nt on this issue
. AFFIRM E D in pa

rt, RE V E RSE D and R E M ANDE D in pa rt. The pa rtie s sha l l be ar the ir own c osts.

-5-