FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 83 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 8- cv -0 01 18 -WT H-KRS TERRI LYNN BROW

N, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - Co un te r ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt , ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- Co un te r ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Cl ai m an t - Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 28 , 20 11 )

Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andHULL, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Terri Ly nn Bro wn ap pe al s p ro se t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o t he go ve rn m en t o n b ot h h er t ax refu ndcla im an d t he go ve rn m en t’s co un te rcl ai m

forunpa idfed eral tru stfun d re co ve ry pe na lt ie s. Bro wn al so ap pe al s th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng th e g ov ern m en t l eav e to am en d i ts co un te rcl ai m . Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm . I. BACKG ROUND A. Bro w n’s Ta x L ia bi li tie s Beg in ni ng in19 95 , Bro wn was th e p res id en t, o nl y off ic er, an d o nl y

di rect or of Safe -Dep os it , Inc ., a sec ur it y gu ardco m

pany in Oca la , Flo rid a. Bro wn, wh o was th e o nl y

au th or iz edsi gn at ory

on Safe -Dep os it ’s ban k a cco un ts , si gn edpa yro ll ch eck s o n t he co m

pa ny’ s b eh al f. Bro wn was res po ns ib le forco ll ect in g a ndpa y in g em pl oym en t t ax es forSafe -Dep os it ’s em pl oyees. Safe -Dep os itfai le d t o turn o ve r to th e In te rn al Rev enue Serv ic e (“ IRS” ) pa yro ll tax es withh el d fr om it s emplo y ees ’ wag es forth e ta x p eri od s en di ng Ju ne 30 , 19 99 ; Se pt em

be r 30 , 19 99 ; Dec em

be r 31 , 19 99 ; M arch 31 , 20 00 ; J un e 3 0, 20 00 ; Dec em

be r 31 , 20 00 ; an d M arch 31 , 20 01 . 1

Br own dissolved Safe- Deposit in or ar ound April 2001. 1 2To re co ve r th os e ta xe s, the IRS as se ss edtru stfun d re co ve ry pe na lt ie s 2 ag ai ns t Br own pe rs on al ly pur su an t t o 2 6 U.S.C. § 66 72 , as ares po ns ib le pe rs on of Safe -Dep os itwho wil lfu ll y fai le d t o p ay

ov er the withh el d t ax es . The t ot al am ou ntof t ru stfun d re co ve ry pe na lt ie s as se ss edag ai ns t Br own was ap pr ox im at el y

$4 4,0 00 . Bro wn m ad e so m e p aym en ts to wardhe r ta x l iabi li ti es

3 fo r th e ta x p eri od s en di ng Ju ne 30 , 19 99 th ro ug h J un e 3 0, 2 00 0. Br own en te red in to anin st al lm en t ag reem en t i n 2 00 5 andm ad e so m e, bu t n otall , of t he pa ym en ts du e. Whe n B ro wn o ve rp ai d h er p ers on al in co m e ta xe s, the IRS cr ed it edth os e am ou nt s t owa rdth e o ut st an di ng ba la nc e o n t he ass es sm en ts . B. Bro w n’s La w su it On M arch 13 , 20 08 , Bro wn fi le d apro se c om pl ai ntag ai ns t the Uni te d St at es , th e Co m

m is si on er o f In te rn al Rev enue , andva rio us un kn own go ve rn m en t

The Interna l Revenue Code r equire s employers to deduc t from wag es paid to their 2 employees theemployees’ shareof F eder al Insuranc e Contribution Act (“F I CA”) taxes and the withholding tax on wag es applica ble to individual income taxes. 26 U.S.C . §§ 3102(a) ; 3402(a). “The withheld sums are c ommonly ref err ed to as ‘tr

ust fund taxes,’ refle ctingthe Code’s provision that such withholdings or c ollections are deeme d to be a ‘ specia l fund in trust for the United States.’” Slodov v. United States, 436 U.S. 238, 243, 98 S. Ct. 1778, 1783 (1978) (citing 26 U.S.C. § 7501). On April 16, 2001, the IRS assessed ag ainst Br own a trust fund r ecove ry penalty of 3 $30,924.16 for the tax periods endingJ une 30, 1999 through J une 30, 2000. On April 21, 2003, the I RS assessed ag ainst Br own two trust fund re cover y penalties, one for $6,322.79 f or the tax period e nding D ece mber 31, 2000, a nd the other f

or $6,889.61 for

the tax period endingMarc h 31, 2001. The amounts assessed re prese nted the trust fund portion of the unpaid fe dera l pay roll taxes of Safe-D eposit’s employees. 3em

pl oyees. Br own rai se d anu m be r of co ns ti tu ti on al an d s ta te -la w to rt c la im s, b ut th e g rav am enof h er co m pl ai ntwas t ha t the go ve rn m en t “ il le ga ll y ass es se d a nd co ll ect ed ” th e trus t fu ndreco ve ry pe na lt ie s “ fro m

. . . Bro wn i ns te adof [ Safe
Dep os it ]. ” On M ay 19 , 20 08 , th e g ov ern m en t fi le d aco un te rcl ai m “ to reduc e to jud gm en t [B ro wn’s] ou ts tand in g fe de ral tax li ab il it ie s.” Th e co un te rcl ai m all eg ed th atBro wn fa il edto pa y

ov er em pl oyee pa yro ll tax es forth e ta x p eri od s en di ng Ju ne 30 , 20 00 ; Dec em

be r 31 , 20 00 ; an d M arch 31 , 20 01 . The co un te rcl ai m al le ge d t ha t the to ta l am ou ntdu e fo r th os e ta x p eri od s, as of M ay 19 , 20 08 , was $4 5,1 18 .55 . C. Go ve rnment’s Mot io n to Dis m is s The go ve rn m en t m ov edto di sm is s B ro wn’s co m pl ai ntforlac k o f subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti onan d fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d t he go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n, ex cep t tha t i t fo un d t ha t Br ownm ay be ab le to ass erta ta x refu ndcla im

ag ai ns t the go ve rn m en t as to th e ta x p eri oden di ng Ju ne 30 , 20 00 . The di st ric t co urt p erm it te d B ro wn t o fi le anam en de d c om pl ai ntass ert in g t ha t t ax refu ndcla im

on ly, whi chBro wn d id . D. Go ve rnment’s Mot io n to Am end Co unte rcl ai m

4Fo ll owi ng di sc ov ery, th e g ov ern m en t m ov edto am en d i ts co un te rcl ai m “ to cl ari fy th atth e as se ss m en t fo r th e ta x p eri od s en di ng Ju ne 30 , 20 00 in cl ud es th e ta x p eri od s en di ng Ju ne 30 , 19 99 th ro ug h J un e 3 0, 2 00 0.” The go ve rn m en t al le ge d B ro wn wo ul d n otbe pre jud ic edby the am en dm en t b ecau se (1) di sc ov ery in cl ud edth e Ju ne 30 , 19 99 th ro ug h J un e 3 0, 2 00 0 t ax pe rio ds , and(2) th e am en dm en t wo ul d n otch an ge th e b al an ce al le ge d t o b e due bu t wo ul d m erel y cl ari fy th e ta x p eri od s co ve red . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d l eav e to am en d. E. Go ve rnment’s Mot io n fo r Summ ar y J udg m ent The go ve rn m en t m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t. Bro wn re qu es te d a co nt in ua nc e, pu rs ua ntto Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 6( d) , to tak e th e de po si ti on of R ic ha rdHanaue r, th e IRS rev enue ag en t as si gn edto he r cas e. The di st ric t co urt g ran te d B ro wn’s re qu es t fo r co nt inua nc e. Afte r Han au er’s d ep os it io n, the go ve rn m en t re ne wedit s s umm ary jud gm en t m ot io n. Br own op po se d t he m ot io n, re qu es te d m ed ia ti on , andag ai n a rg ue d s he sh ou ldbe gra nt edlea ve to co nduc t ad di ti on al di sc ov ery. The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d Bro wn’s re qu es t fo r ad di ti on al di sc ov ery an d g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o t he go ve rn m en t o n b ot h B ro wn’s o ne tax refu ndcla im an d the go ve rn m en t’s am en de d co un te rcl ai m . Bro wn ap pe al ed . II . DISCUSSI ON 5A. Lea ve to Amend Cou nter cl ai m

Bro wn co nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt erredingra nt in g t he go ve rn m en t l eav e to am en d i ts co un te rcl ai m

to in cl ud e th e ta x p eri od s i n 1 99 9. 4 Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 5( a)(2 ) pr ov id es th atbe fo re tria l a d is tri ct co urt “ sh ou ldfree ly giv e le av e” t o a m en d “ whe n ju st ic e so requi res .” Fed . R. Civ . P. 15 (a)( 2) . Howev er, the di st ric t co urt n eedno t p erm itanam en dm en t “ (1 ) whe re th ere h as be enun du e d el ay , badfai th , di la to ry m ot iv e, orrep eat edfai lu re t o c ur e de fic ie nc ie s b y

am en dm en ts pre vi ou sl y

all owe d; (2) wher e al lo win g a m en dm en t wou ldcau se un du e p reju di ce t o t he op po si ng pa rty; or(3) wher e am en dm en t wou ldbe fut il e.” Co rs el lo v. Lin care , Inc ., 42 8 F .3d10 08 , 10 14 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . Bro wn’s o nl y

co nt en ti on of e rro r is he r ba re as se rti on , witho utleg al or ev id en ti ary supp ort, tha t s he was p reju di cedby the go ve rn m en t’s am en dm en t be cau se th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns ha d ru n o n t he tax ass es sm en t fo r th e y ear 1 99 9. Eve n a ss um in g B ro wn ad equa te ly pres erv edan d ra is edth is is su e, itlac ks m eri t. The co un te rcl ai m

am en dm en t d idno t as se rt ane w cla im forrel ie f. The un co ntro ve rte d e vi de nc e sh ows th atth e Apr il 16 , 20 01 ass es sm en t ag ai ns t Br own

We reviewa district cour t’s decision to grant lea

ve to amend a

pleadingfor a

buse of 4 discretion. Goldsmith v. Bag by Elevator Co., 513 F .3d 1261, 1276 (11th Cir. 2008).

6fo r $3 0,9 24 .16 —o ne of the th ree a ss es sm en ts refe ren cedinth e o rig in al

co un te rcl ai m

as s ho win g t he pe na lt ie s the go ve rn m en t was see ki ng to reduc e to jud gm en t—was fortru stfun d re co ve ry pe na lt ie s fo r th e ta x p eri od s en di ng Ju ne 30 , 19 99 ; Se pt em

be r 30 , 19 99 ; Dec em

be r 31 , 19 99 ; an d J un e 3 0, 2 00 0. Th us , th e go ve rn m en t was co un te rcl ai m in g fo r th e 1 99 9 p en al ti es all alo ng , th ou gh th e or ig in al co un te rcl ai m

fai le d t o p oi ntitou t. As the di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y fou nd , Bro wn was no t p reju di cedby the co un te rcl ai m

am en dm en t b ecau se (1) itdi d n otaffe ctth e am ou ntdu e o r in cl ud e an y ne w ass es sm en ts or p en al ti es , and(2) di sc ov ery ha d a lre ady in cl ud edall th e pe rio ds co ve redby the cla rif y in g a m en dm en t. Mo reo ve r, be cau se th e p en al ti es for th e 1 99 9 t ax pe rio ds were i nc lu de d i n t he Apri l 1 6, 2 00 1 a ss es sm en t, the re was no st atut e o f li m it at io ns vi ol at io n i n a ny even t. See 26 U.S.C. § 6 50 1( a) (s ta ti ng th at

“ th e am ou ntof a ny tax im po se d b y th is ti tl e sh al l b e as se ss edwithi n 3 y ears aft er th e return was fil ed ”). The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n g ran ti ng th e g ov ern m en t le av e to am en d i ts co un te rcl ai m . B. Summ ar y J udg m ent

7Bro wn ar gu es th e d is tri ctco urt erredingra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t t o t he

go ve rn m en t o n i ts am en de d c ou nt ercl ai m an d h er re fu ndcla im . 5 Und er 2 6 U.S.C. § 66 72 , “ th e o ffi cers or e m pl oyees o f th e em

pl oyer res po ns ib le foreffe ctua ti ng th e co ll ect io n a ndpa ym en t o f tr us t-f un d t ax es who wil lfu ll y fai l t o d o s o a re m ad e p ers on al ly liab le [fo r] a ‘ pe na lt y ’ equa l t o t he am ou ntof t he de li nque nttax es .” Slo do v, 4 36 U.S. at 2 44 -4 5, 9 8 S . Ct. at17 84 . 6 The tes t fo r li ab il it y

un de r §6 67 2( a) h as two ele m en ts : “ (1 ) a res po ns ib le pe rs on (2 ) who ha s wi ll fu ll y

fai le d t o p erfo rm

a du ty to co ll ect , acco un t fo r, orpa y ov er fed eral em

pl oym en t t ax es .” Tho st es on v. Un it edSta te s, 3 31 F.3d12 94 , 12 98 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . A “ res po ns ib le pe rs on ” is “ anoff ic er o r em

pl oyee of a co rp or at io n wh o i s un de r a dut y

to co ll ect , acco un t fo r, orpa y ov er the withh el d t ax .” Thi bo de auv.

We reviewde novo a district c ourt’s grant of summar y judgme nt. Shuford v. Fid. Na t’l 5 Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2007). In doing so, “ [w] e apply the same leg al standar ds that bound the district court and vie w all fa cts and re asonable infere nces in the light most favor able to the nonmovingparty .” I d. We reviewthe district court’s de nial of a Rule 56(d) motion for lea

ve to conduc t additional discovery for a buse of discr etion. I d.; see F ed. R. Civ. P . 56. A district court’s de cision whether to order me diation is also reviewe d for a buse of discretion. B ouchar d Transp. Co. v. F la. Dep’ t of Envtl. Prot., 91 F.3d 1445, 1448 (11th Cir. 1996). Section 6672 provides that “a ny person r equire d to collect, truthfully acc ount for, and 6 pay over a ny tax i mposed by

this ti tle who willfully

fails to collect suc h tax, or truthfully acc ount for a nd pay over suc h tax, or will fully attempts in any

manner to evade or def

eat a ny such tax or the pay ment there of, shall . . . be liable to a penalty equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collected, or

not acc ounted for a

nd paid over .” 26 U.S.C. § 6672(a) .

8Uni te d S ta te s, 8 28 F.2d14 99 , 15 03 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). Ther e is no di sp ut e th at

Bro wn i s a “ res po ns ib le pe rs on ” und er § 66 72 . The wil lfu ln es s re qu ire m en t i s s at is fie d “ if t he res po ns ib le pe rs onha s kn owl ed ge of p aym en ts to othe r cre di to rs aft er [s ]he b eco m es aware o f th e fai lu re to rem itth e wit hh el d t ax es .” Tho st es on , 33 1 F .3d at13 00 . There is no requi rem en t tha t wi ll fu ln es s o f th e res po ns ib le pe rs on in cl ud e a fraudul en t o r ot he r ba d m ot iv e. Id . Bro wn d en ie s s he m eet s the wil lfu ln es s re qu ire m en t, b utsh e h as rep eat ed ly co nc ed ed , bo th inth e d is tri ctco urt an d a ga in inhe r br ie f on ap pe al , th atsh e de li be rat el y

pa idSafe -Dep os it ’s em

pl oyees’ wage s an d o th er cr ed it or s b efo re s he pa idth e trus t fu ndtax es to th e g ov ern m en t. Bro wn’s co nduc t s at is fie s t he wil lfu ln es s s ta nd ard . Bro wn ar gu es sh e is no t l iabl e und er § 66 72 be cau se sh e h ad“reas on ab le cau se ” fo r no t p ay in g t he tru stfun d t ax es —n am el y , herownan d h er fa m il y ’s he al th pro bl em s an d a n a ll eg edpa tt ernof t orti ou s i nt erfe ren ce ag ai ns t Sa feDep os itby the Ocal a Po li ce Dep art m en t. Thi s C ou rt h as ne ve r de ci de d wh ethe r th ere i s a “ reas on ab le cau se ” d efen se to a fi nd in g o f wil lfu ln es s u nd er § 66 72 . See Tho st es on , 33 1 F .3dat 1 30 1. Bu t ev enif t he re were , itwou ldno t ap pl y to Bro wn be cau se “ [n ]o su chde fen se m ay be ass ert edby a resp on si bl e p ers on who kn ew

9th atth e withh ol di ng tax es were due , bu t wh o m ad e a co ns ci ou s d eci si on to us e

co rp or at e fu nd s t o p ay

cred it or s o th er tha n the go ve rn m en t.” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . Wha te ve r th e cau se of S afe- Dep os it ’s fin an ci al woes , Bro wn b y he r own adm is si on “us edth e co rp or at e in co m e to pa y pa yro ll an d b us in es s ex pe ns es rathe r th anto pa y

ful ly the tax es du e fi rs t.” The refo re, s he is li ab le fora pe na lt y equa l t o th e am ou ntof u np ai d t ax es pu rs ua ntto § 6 67 2. The d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y 7 gr an te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o the go ve rn m en t o n i ts co un te rcl ai m . 8 Bec au se th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y he ldth atBro wn i s l iabl e fo r th e trus t fu ndreco ve ry

pe na lt ie s u nd er § 66 72 , itli ke wis e co rrec tl y de te rm in edth atBro wn

For the first time on appe al, B rown c ontends there is a g enuine issue of materia l fac t as 7 to whether

the g overnme nt sent her the pr oper notice s of her tax l iabilities. S ee 26 U .S.C. § 6672(b)( 1) (r equiringthe g overnme nt to notify a taxpayer a g ainst which it is seekingto impose a trust fund pe nalty

in writing by

mail sent to his or her last known a ddress). B eca use this issue was not ra ised in the district court, it is waived. See Nore lus v. Denny ’s, Inc., 628 F .3d 1270, 1296 (11th Cir. 2010) (noting“our w ell-established r ule . . . [that] issues not raised in the district court should not be conside red on a ppeal” ). In any

event, the doc uments attache d to Brown’s brief on a ppeal sug g est that the g overnme nt sent, and she r ece ived, prope r notice. Br own ar gues that the district cour t erre d in gr antingsummary judgme nt without 8 permitting a dditional discovery or orde ringmediation. We find no abuse of discretion. B rown admitted eac h element ne cessa ry to prove liability

under § 6672 a

nd has madeno showingthat the witnesses she w ished to depose would pr ovide information that might alter that fa ct. Moreove r, she a lrea dy

was a fforded one oppor

tunity for a dditional discovery . And a district court is obviously

under no oblig ation to order me diation in the fac e of a valid motion for summary judgme nt. 10was no t en ti tl edto a refu ndof the am ou nt s s he ha s al read y pa id . The g ov ern m en t is en ti tl edto su m

m ary jud gm en t o n B ro wn’s t ax refundcla im . 9

II I. CONCLUSI ON Fo r th e rea so ns setforthab ov e, we affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt. AFFIRMED.

Br own cha lleng es the amount of the judg ment enter ed by the district court. She c ontends 9 that the g overnme nt conce ded that B rown ha s alrea dy paid in full the pena lties for the tax period endingJ une 30, 2000 listed in the April 16, 2001 assessment. B rown misconstrues the g overnme nt’s conce ssion, which was only that subject matter jurisdiction ex isted for a ref und claim base d on the pena lties as to the June 30, 2000 tax period bec ause B rown ha d paid the amount of tax withheld for a sing le Safe -Deposit employ ee f or the June 30, 2000 period. In fac t, the undisputed fac ts show that Brown did not pay the full amount of the pe nalties deriving from the J une 30, 2000 tax period, but only a portion of them. B rown ha s shown no err or in the amount of the judgment ag ainst her. 11