156 T.C . No. 8

UNITED STATES TAX C OUR T

R OB E R T R OW EN, Pe titione r v. C OM M ISSIONER OF INTER NAL REVENUE, R e sponde nt

Doc ke t No. 18083-18P. File d M arc h 30, 2021.

P fa ile d to pa

y a s se sse d tax lia

bilitie s tota ling a

t le a st $474,846 re lating to ta

x y e ars 1994, 1996, 1997, a nd 2003 through 2007. R c e rtifie d tha

t P ha s a “ se riously

de linque n t tax de bt” within the m e aning of I.R .C . se c . 7345(b). P pe titione d this C ourt to de te rm ine that R ’ s c e rtific a tion wa s e rrone ous pursua nt to I.R .C . se c . 7345(e )(1). P m ove d for sum

m ary judgm e nt on theba sis tha t I.R .C . se c . 7345 viola

te s the Due Proc e ss C la

use of the Fifth Am e ndm e nt to theC onstitution be c a use it infringe s the right to inte rnationa l tra

ve l. P a lso a lle ge d tha

t I.R .C . se c . 7345 viola

t e s his hum an rights a s e xpre sse d in the Unive rsa l De c la ra tion of Hum an R ights (UDHR

). R file d a c ross-m otion for sum

m a ry judgm e nt a lle g ing tha

t (1) I.R .C . se c . 7345 is c onstitutiona l; (2) the UDHR

doe s not c re at e a c tiona ble c la im s in Fe de ra l c ourts; (3) P’ s de bt re m a ins e nforc e a ble ; and (4) R did not e rr in c e rtify ing P’ s tax lia bilitie s a s a

se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt.

Served 03/30/21- 2 - He ld: B e c a

use I.R .C . se c . 7345 m e re ly provide s for the c e rtific a t ion of c e rta in ta

x-re late d fa c ts a

n d doe s not re stric t

in a ny m anne r the right to internationa l tra ve l, it c annot run a foul of the Due Proc e ss C la

use of the Fifth Am e ndm e nt. He ld, furthe r, for the sa

m e re a son, I.R .C . se c . 7345 c a nnot viola te the UDHR
. He ld, furthe r, P ha s a

ba ndone d his c l a im

tha t I.R .C . se c . 7345 de prive s him

of a n opportunity

for a m e aningful he aring within the m e aning of theDue Proc e ss C la use of the Fifth Am e ndm e nt. He ld, furthe r, R ha s e sta

blishe d tha

t he is e ntitle d to judgm e nt a s a m a tte r of la

w tha t no portion of P’ s se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt is une nforc e a

ble by ope ra tion of thepe riod of lim ita tions on c olle c tion. He ld, furthe r, R did not e rr in c e rtify ing tha t P ha s a se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt within the m e aning of I.R .C . se c . 7345(b).

Sande e p Singh, for pe titione r. Lisa P. La ffe rty , John S. Hitt, a nd Dougla s S. Polsky , for re sponde nt.

OPINION
TOR O, Judge : For m ore tha n two de c a de s , pe titione r, R obe rt R owe n, fa ile d to pa y his Fe de ra l tax a s re quire d by la w. The Inte rna l R e v e nue Se rvic e (“ IR S” )
a tte m pte d to c olle c t

the outsta

nding a m ounts through its usua

l m e ans--se nding de m ands, filing lie

ns, a tte m pting to le vy on a s se ts--a ll without m uc h suc c e s s. In- 3 -

2018, whe n Dr. R o we n’ s outsta nding ta x ba la nc e wa s c lose to $500,000, the C om m issione r of Inte rna l R e ve nue turne d to a ne w tool in his c olle c tion toolbox--
se c t ion 7345. 1 Ena c te d in 2015, se c t ion 7345 a uthoriz e s the C om

m issione r to se nd to the Se c re t ary of the Tre a sury

a c e rtific a tion tha

t a n individual ha s a

“ se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt.” The Se c re ta

ry of the Tre a sury in turn m ust tra nsm it tha t
c e rtific a tion to the

Se c re t a ry of State “ for a c tion with re spe c t to de nia l , re voc a tion, or lim ita tion of a pa ssport pursua

nt to se c t ion 32101 of the * * * [Fixing Ame ric a ’ s Surfa c e Transporta

tion Ac t (‘ FAST Ac t ’ ), Pub. L. No. 114-94, 129 Sta t. at 1729 (2015)] .” Se c . 7345(a ). Apply ing his a

uthority unde r se c t ion 7345, the

C om m issione r c e rtifie d tha

t Dr. R owe n ha s a

se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt. Tha

t c e rtific a tion wa s se n t to the Se c re t ary of Stat e . Ac c ording to the re c ord be fore us, the Se c re t ary of State ha s not unde rtake n a

ny a c tion to re voke Dr. R owe n’ s pa ssport. Afte r re c e iving notific a tion of theC om m i ssione r’ s c e rtific a tion, Dr. Rowe n file d a pe tition in our C ourt unde r se c tion 7345(e ). His m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt followe d
. In it, Dr. Rowe n a sks us to de te rm ine tha t the C om m i ssione r’ s

1 Unle ss othe rwise indic a t e d, a ll se c tion re fe re nc e s a re to the Inte rna l R e ve nue C ode (the “ C ode ” ) in e ffe c t at a ll re le va nt tim e s, a

nd a ll R ule re fe re nc e s are t o the Ta x C ourt R

ule s of Pra c tic e and Proc e dure . W e round a ll m o ne ta ry am ounts to the

ne are s t dolla

r.- 4 -

c e rtific a tion wa s e rrone ous. Dr. R owe n offe rs two princ ipa l a rgum e nts in support of his re que st. First, hem a inta i ns tha t se c tion 7345 is unc onstitutiona l be c a use it prohibits inte

rnationa l tra

ve l in viola

tion of theDue Proc e ss C la use of the Fifth Am e ndm e nt to theC onstitution. Se c ond, he argue s tha t se c tion 7345 viola

te s his hum an rights under the Unive rsa l De c la ra tion of Hum an R ights (“UDHR ” ), G.A. R e s. 217A (III), U.N. Doc . A/810 (De c . 10, 1948). The C om m issione r ha s file d a
c ross-m o tion for sum

m ary judgm e nt, de fe nding thesta tute and m a i nta ining tha

t the
c e rtific a tion wa s prope r. Finding no m e rit in Dr. Rowe n’ s a rgum e nts a

nd othe rwise pe rc e iving no e rror in the C om m issione r’ s c e rtific a tion, we will sustain the c e rtific a tion. B a c kground The following ba c kground sta t e m e nt is dra

w n from the pa rtie s’ ple a dings
and m otion pa

pe rs, inc l uding thea dm inistra tive re c o rd, a s supple m e nte d by the pa rtie s , whic h wa s atta c he d to the C om m issione r’ s m o tion for sum m ary judgm e nt. The re le va

nt fa c t s in the ba c kground sta te m e nt a re sum m ariz e d sole ly

for the purpose of re solving the

pe nding m o tions a

nd a re not in dispute . Dr. R owe n
re side d in C a lifornia

whe n he pe titione d

this C ourt.- 5 -

A. Dr. R owe n ’ s Profe ssiona l B a c kground a nd Inte rnationa l Tra

ve l Dr. R owe n , a

U.S. c itiz e n, is a

m e dic a l doc tor lic e nse d to pra c tic e in C a lifornia . He fre que ntly trav e ls to de ve loping c ountrie s to offe r m e dic a l se rvic e s fre e of c ha

rge to popula

tions tha t would not othe

rwise have a c c e s s to a de quate
m e dic a l c are . He a lso ha s fam ily m e m be rs in Singa

pore and m a i nla

nd C h ina , whe re he trave ls for pe rsona l re a sons. B
. Dr. R owe n ’ s Fa ilure To C om ply W ith His Fe d e ra l Tax Obliga tions For m ore tha

n two de c a de s, Dr. R owe n ha s re pe a te dly fa i le d to file Fe de ra l inc o m e ta x re turns. As re le v ant to this c a se , Dr. R owe n first fa ile d to file a

tim e l y inc o m e ta x re turn for ta

x y e ar 1994. In April 1997, Dr. R owe n wa s indic te d on,
and ple a de d guilty

to, one c ount of c orruptly e nde avoring to im

pe de an IR S inve stiga tion of his a c tivitie s. As re q uire d by his ple a a gre e m e nt, Dr. R owe n file d de linque nt inc om e tax re turns for 1994 a nd 1996 on M arc h

15, 1998, a

nd tim e ly file d his 1997 inc o m e tax re turn on April 15, 1998. The IR S issue d to Dr. R owe n a notic e of de fic ie n c y

for tax y e ar 1994. Dr. Rowe n did not pe t ition this C ourt for
re de te rm ination, a

n d the 1994 de fic ie n c y

wa s a sse sse d

on M ay 22, 2000. On April 23, 2000, Dr. R

owe n subm itte d am e nde d re turns for ta x y e ars 1996 a

nd 1997. The IR S proc e sse d Dr. R owe n’ s a m e nde d re turns a

nd a sse sse d the am ounts
re porte d on thosere turns on June 19 a nd July 31, 2000, re spe c tive ly
.- 6 -

In an e ffort to c olle c t the a sse sse d am ounts, on June 18, 2001, the IR S issue d to Dr. R owe n a

notic e of inte nt to le vy

re lating to ta

x y e ars 1994, 1996, a

nd 1997. The notic e e xpla ine d Dr. R owe n’ s right to se e k a he aring be fore the IR S Offic e of Appe a ls (“ IR S Appe a ls” ) (whose de te rm inat ion would ha ve be e n re v ie wa

b le by this C ourt pursua

nt to se c tion 6330), but Dr. R owe n did not a

va il him se lf of tha

t opportunity . Inste a d , on June 21, 2001, Dr. R owe n file d for ba

nkruptc y , se e king disc ha rge of his Fe de ra l inc om e tax lia bilitie s for tax y e ars 1992 through 1997. On M arc h 5, 2003, the

ba nkruptc y c ourt he ld tha

t Dr. R owe n willfully

fa ile d to file his ta x re turns a

nd fa i le d to pa

y his inc om e tax lia

bilitie s for tax y e ars 1992 through 1997. The ba

nkruptc y c o urt re fuse d to disc ha

rge the lia bilitie s. De spite his prior ple a

a gre e m e nt, Dr. R owe n a ga in stoppe d filing inc om e ta x
re turns sta

rting with 2003. It wa s only a fte r the IR S ge ne ra t e d a substitute

for
re turn for ta

x y e ar 2007 in July 2009 tha t Dr. R owe n subm itte d re turns for ta x y e ars 2003 through 2007. B ut Dr. R owe n fa ile d to pa y the am ounts due re fle c te d in thosere turns, so the

IR S file d notic e s of Fe de ra l tax lie n (“NFTLs” ) a

nd m a ile d notic e s of filing the NFTLs to Dr. Rowe n . The IR S a lso issue d notic e s of inte nt to le vy a ga inst Dr. Rowe n

re lating to his unpa

id lia bilitie s for tax y e ars 2003 through 2007. 2 In re sponse , Dr. R o w e n tim e ly file d a re q ue st for a he aring with IR S

2 The first NFTL wa s file d on Oc tobe r 29, 2010, a nd re late d to Dr. R owe n’ s

(c ontinue d...)- 7 -

Appe a ls pursua

nt to se c t ions 6320 a

nd 6330 re lating to the c olle c tion of his inc om e ta x lia bilitie s for 2003 through 2007. On Nove m be r 30, 2012, IR S Appe a ls issue d to Dr. R owe n a

Notic e of De te rm ination C onc e rning C o lle c tion Ac tion(s) Unde r Se c tion 6320 a

nd/or 6330, susta

ining the NFTL filings a

nd the propose d le vie s
re lating to ta

x y e ars 2003 through 2007. On De c e m

be r 27, 2012, Dr. Rowe n tim e l y pe titione d

this C ourt a

t doc ke t No. 31141-12L for re vie w of the notic e of de te rm ination. On Oc tobe r 28, 2014,
we e nte re d a stipula

te d de c ision susta

ining IR S Appe a ls’ de te rm ination in full. C
. C e rtific a tion Unde r Se c tion 7345 Dr. R owe n ha s not fully

pa id the a sse sse d inc om e tax lia bilitie s for tax y e ars 1994, 1996, 1997, a

nd 2003 through 2007. To fa c ilita t e c olle c tion of the ta x owe d
and a c t ing unde r the ne wly grante d a uthority of se c tion 7345, on or a

bout July 16, 2018, the C om

m issione r c e rtifie d Dr. R owe n a s a n individual owing a
se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt. The c e rtific ation wa s se nt to theState De pa rtm e nt

2 (...c ontinue d) 2003 through 2006 inc o m e tax lia bilitie s. Notic e of the filing of thefirst NFTL wa s provide d to Dr. R o we n on Nove m be r 2, 2010. These c ond NFTL wa s file d on De c e m b e r 31, 2010, a

nd re late d to his 2007 inc o m e tax lia bility . Notic e of the filing of these c ond NFTL wa s provide d to Dr. R owe n on Ja nua ry 6, 2011. The first notic e of inte n t

to le vy wa s issue d on Nove m

b e r 19, 2010, a

nd re l a te d to Dr. R owe n’ s 2003 through 2006 inc om e tax lia bilitie s. The se c ond notic e of inte nt to le vy wa s issue d on Fe brua

ry 2, 2011, a

nd re late d to Dr. R owe n’ s 2007 inc om e ta x lia bility
.- 8 -

for a c tion with re spe c t to de nia l, re voc a tion, or lim ita tion of Dr. Rowe n’ s pa ssport,
a s provide d in se c tion 7345(a ), and the C om

m i ssione r se nt Dr. R owe n a notic e C P508C , Notic e of C e rtific a tion of Your Se riously De linque nt Fe de ra l Tax De bt to the State De p artm e nt, a s re quire d by se c tion 7345(d). In tha

t notic e , the C om m issione r state d tha

t Dr. R owe n owe d $474,847 in Fe de ra l inc om e tax for tax y e ars 1994, 1996, 1997, a nd 2003 through 2007. D. Dr. R owe n ’ s Pa ssport Dr. R owe n he ld a

va lid pa ssport whe n the c e rtific a tion wa s m a de
. Tha t pa ssport e xpire s in Nove m be r 2024. Although the Stat e De pa rtm e nt wa s
e m powe re d to re voke Dr. R owe n’ s pa ssport a fte r re c e iving thec e rtific ation, the Stat e De p artm e n t, a s of August 20, 2020, ha d not inform e d Dr. R owe n of a ny
a dve rse a c t ion with re spe c t to his e x isting pa ssport. 3 E. Proc e e d ings in This C ourt On Se pte m

be r 12, 2018, Dr. Rowe n file d a pe tition in our C ourt unde r
se c t ion 7345(e )(1). The c ross-m otions for sum m ary judgm e nt now be fore us followe d in due c o urse .

3 B y orde r date d

August 5, 2020, the

C o urt orde re d

the pa rtie s to supple m e nt the a dm inistra

t ive re c ord with re spe c t to pe t itione r’ s pa ssport. On August 21, 2020, the pa

rtie s file d a

stipula tion of fa c ts tha

t upda te d a nd supple m e nte d the a dm inistra t ive re c ord in a c c orda

nc e with theC ourt’ s orde r.- 9 - Disc ussion I. Sc ope and Sta

nda rd of R e vie w Unde r Se c tion 7345 Sum m a ry judgm e nt e xpe dite s litiga tion a n d avoids c ostly , tim e -c onsum ing,
and unne c e ssa

ry tria ls. Fla . Pe a c h C orp. v. C om m issione r, 90 T.C
. 678, 681 (1988). In c a se s tha

t a re subje c t to a de novo sc ope of re vie w, this C ourt m ay grant
sum m ary judgm e nt whe n the re is no ge nuine disputea s to a ny m a te ria l fa c t a

nd a de c ision m a

y be re nde re d a s a

m a tte r of la

w. R ule 121(b); Sundstra

nd C orp. v. C om m issione r, 98 T.C
. 518, 520 (1992), a ff’ d, 17 F.3d 965 (7th C i r. 1994). In
c a se s tha t are de c ide d on the a dm inistra tive re c o rd (re c ord rule c a se s), this C ourt ordina rily de c ide s the issue s ra ise d by the pa rtie s by re vie wing the a dm inistra tive
re c o rd using a

sum m ary a djudic a tion proc e dure
. Se e Va n B e m m e l e n v. C om m issione r, 155 T.C . ___, ___ (slip op. a t 24-26) (Aug. 27, 2020) (sum m a riz ing the re lationship be twe e n sc ope and sta

nda rd of re v ie w a

nd the sta nda rd of sum m a ry a djudic ation). This is the

first oc c a sion on whic h

this C ourt ha s c onside re d the m e rits of a
c e rtific a tion pursua

n t to se c tion 7345. Se e R ue s c h v. C om

m issione r, 154 T.C . 289 (2020) (c onside ring se c tion 7345 but c onc luding tha t the ta xpa

y e r’ s c ha lle nge s to the m e rits of the c e rtific a tion we re m oot). Although a c ourt re a c hing a de c ision on the m e rits ordina

rily m ust c o n side r both the sc ope of re vie w (that is, wha t e vide nc e- 10 -

the c ourt will c onside r) and the sta nda rd of re vie w (that is, how the c o urt will
e va luate the e vide n c e it c onside rs), se e Ka spe r v. C om m issione r, 150 T.C . 8, 14 (2018), we ne e d not do so here . As to thesc ope of re vie w, the re is no dispute be twe e n the pa

rtie s with re spe c t to thee vide nc e we should c onside r. As to the sta nda rd of re vie w, a s we e xpla in be low, our de c ision would be the sa m e whe the r
we re vie w e d the C om

m issione r’ s c e rtific a tion de novo or for a buse of disc re tion. Ac c ordingly , we le ave for anothe r day a de c ision on the

sc ope and sta

nda rd of
re vie w unde r se c tion 7345(e )(1). II. FAST Ac t Se c tion 32101 W e turn now to FAST Ac t se c tion 32101 in ge ne ra l a n d se c tion 7345 in pa rtic u la r. A. Struc ture of FAST Ac t Se c tion 32101 C ongre ss e na c t e d se c tion 7345 a s pa rt of FAST Ac t se c tion 32101. FAST Ac t se c tion 32101 inc lude d nine subse c tions, se ve n a ddre ssing ope ra tive rule s a nd two a ddre ssing house ke e ping m a tte rs. 4

4 On the house ke e ping front, se c tion 32101(h) of the Fixing Am e ric a ’ s Surfa c e Transporta

tion Ac t (“ FAST Ac t” ), Pub. L. No. 114-94, 129 Sta t. at 1733 (2015), a m e n de d the ta

ble of se c tions for subc ha pte r D of c ha

pte r 75 of the C ode to re fle c t the a ddition of se c tion 7345, a nd FAST Ac t se c tion 32101(i), 129 Sta t. a t 1733, se t out the e ffe c tive date of the othe r provisions of tha t se c tion.- 11 -

Of the se ve n ope ra tive subse c t ions, four--subse c tions (a ), (b), (c ), and (d)--a m e nde d the C ode and provide d rule s gove rning thec onduc t of the C om m issione r an d the Se c re ta ry of the Tre a s ury . Of prim ary re le va n c e he re , FAST Ac t se c t ion 32101(a) a d de d se c tion 7345 a s a ne w se c tion of theC ode
. 5 The re m a i ning thre e ope rative subse c tions--subse c tions (e ), (f), and (g)--provide d rule s a

pplic a ble to the Se c re ta

ry of State an d we re subse que ntly
c odifie d in title

22 of the Unite d

State s C ode
. W e c onside r som e of the se provisions in gre a te r de t a il be low. B
. Se c tion 7345 Se c tion 7345(a

) provide s: If the Se c re ta

ry [of the Tre a sury ] re c e ive s c e rtific ation by the C om m issione r of Inte rna l R e ve n ue tha t a n individual ha s a

se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt, the Se c re ta

ry [of the Tre a sury ] sha ll tra nsm it suc h c e rtific a t ion to theSe c re t ary of State for a c tion with re s pe c t to de nia l, re voc a t i on, or limita

t ion of a pa ssport pursua

nt to se c tion 32101 of the FAST Ac t. Se c tion 7345(b)(1) ge ne ra lly de fine s a “ se riously

de linque nt ta

x de bt” a s a

n

“ unpa id, le ga l ly

e nforc e a ble Fe de ra l tax lia

bility ” tha t “ ha s be e n a sse sse d,” “ is

5 FAST Ac t se c tion 32101(b), 129 Sta t. at 1731, a m e nde d the notic e re quire m e nts unde r se c tions 6320(a )(3) and 6331(d)(4). FAST Ac t se c t ion 32101(c ), 129 Sta t . at 1731, a

m e n de d se c tion 6103(k) to pe rm i t the Se c re t ary of the Tre a sury

to disc lose to the Se c re ta ry of State c e rta in re turn inform a t ion. FAST Ac t se c t ion 32101(d), 129 Sta t. at 1732, a

m e nde d se c t ion 7508(a) to m ake the rule of tha t se c tion a

pplic a ble to the c e rtific a tion of a se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt.- 12 -

gre ate r tha

n” $51,000, 6 for whic h “ a notic e of lie n ha s be e n

file d pursua

nt to
se c t ion 6323 a

nd the a d m inistra tive rights unde r se c t ion 6320 * * * ha ve be e n
e xha uste d or ha

ve la pse d, or * * * le vy is m a de pursua nt to se c tion 6331.” Se c tion 7345(b)(2) e xc lude s from the de finition of “ se riously de linque nt ta x de bt”
any de b t tha t is “ be ing pa id in a

tim e ly m a nne r pursua

nt to a n a g re e m e nt * * * unde r se c tion 6159 or 7122” and a ny de bt for whic h “ c olle c tion is suspe nde d * * * be c a use a due proc e ss he aring unde r se c tion 6330 is re q ue ste d or pe nding, or * * * be c a use ” re lie f unde r se c tion 6015 is re que ste d. 7 Se c tion 7345(d) re quire s the C om m issione r to c onte m

pora ne ously notify a taxpa y e r of any

c e rtific at ion unde r subse c tion (a ). Se c tion 7345(c ) provide s rule s for re v e rsing a c e rtific ation. It re q

uire s the C om m issione r to “ notify

the Se c re ta

ry (and the Se c re ta

ry sha ll subse que ntly

notify the Se c re ta

ry of State ) if suc h c e rtific a tion is found to be e rrone ous [by

a c ourt unde r se c tion 7345(e ) a s de sc ribe d be low] or if the de b t with re spe c t to suc h

6 Se c t ion 7345(b)(1)(B ) re quire s tha t the lia bility be gre a te r tha

n $50,000. This a m ount is a djuste d for infla tion be ginning in ta

x y e ars a fte r 2016. Se c . 7345(f). The a djuste d am ount for ta x y e a r 2018 wa s $51,000.
7 In im ple m e nting se c tion 7345, the C om m issione r ha s e sta

blishe d c e rta in disc re tiona

ry e x c lusions from

c e rtific ation for de bts tha t would otherwise qua lify unde r the se c tion 7345 de finition. Se e Inte rna l R e v e n ue M anua l pt. 5.1.12.27.4 (De c . 20, 2017). Ne ithe r the e xc lusions in se c tion 7345(b)(2) nor the disc re tiona

ry e xc lusions a

re at issue , so we ne e d not disc uss the m he re .- 13 -

c e rtific a tion is fully

satisfie d or c e a se s to be a se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt by
re a s on of subse c t ion (b)(2).” As with a c e rtific a tion, theC om

m issione r m

ust notify the taxpa y e r of a re ve rsa l of a c e rtific a tion. Se c . 7345(d). The C ourt’ s jurisdic tion to c onside r this c a s e is found in se c tion 7345(e ), whic h provide s a s follows:

SEC . 7345(e ). Judic ia l R e vie w of C e rtific a tion.-- (1) In ge ne ra l.--Afte r the C om m issione r notifie s a

n individual unde r subse c tion (d), thetaxpa y e r m ay bring a c i vil a c tion a ga inst theUnite d State s in a distric t c ourt of the Unite d State s, or a ga inst theC om m issione r in the Ta x C ourt, to de te rm ine whe t

h e r the c e rtific ation wa s e rrone ous or whe the r the C om m issione r ha s fa ile d to re ve rse the c e rtific a tion. For purpose s of the pre c e ding se n te nc e , the c ourt first a c quiring jurisdic tion ove r suc h a

n a c tion sha ll ha

ve sole jurisdic tion. (2) De te rm i nation.--If the c ourt de te rm ine s tha t suc h c e rtific a t ion wa s e rrone ous, the n the c ourt m ay orde r the Se c re ta ry to notify the Se c re ta

ry of State that suc h

c e rtific a tion wa s e rrone ous. Se c tion 7345(e ) doe s not se t any de a dline for filing the c ivil a c tion it
a uthoriz e s. Onc e the C om m issione r notifie s a

taxpa y e r that a c e rtific a tion unde r
se c t ion 7345(a) ha s be e n m a de , the taxpa y e r m ay c ha lle n ge tha

t c e rtific ation in a
c ivil a c tion file d e ithe r in this C ourt or in a Fe de ra l Distric t

C ourt. The c ourt first
a c quiring jurisdic tion ove r a c e rtific a tion c ha lle nge ha s sole jurisdic tion ove r that
a c tion. Se c . 7345(e )(1).- 14 -

C
. FAST Ac t Se c tion 32101(e ) As just de sc ribe d , unde r se c tion 7345(a ), a c e rtific ation tha

t a n individual ha s a se riously de linque n t

tax de bt m

ust be tra nsm itte d to the Se c re ta

ry of State

“ for a c tion with re spe c t to de nia l, re voc a tion, or lim ita tion of a pa ssport pursua

nt to
se c t ion 32101 of the

FAST Ac t.” The re le va

nt a c tion by

the Se c re ta

ry of State is a

uthoriz e d by

FAST Ac t
se c t ion 32101(e ), c o difie d a s subse c tion (e ) of 22 U.S.C . se c tion 2714a (2018), whic h provide s: (e ) Authority To De ny

or R e voke Pa ssport.-- (1) De nia l.-- (A) In ge ne ra l.--Exc e pt a s provide d unde r subpa ra gra p h (B ), upon re c e iving a

c e rtific a tion de sc ribe d in se c tion 7345 of title 26 from

the Se c re ta

ry of the Tre a sury , the Se c re ta ry of State sha ll not issue

a pa ssport to a

ny individual who ha s a se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt de sc ribe d in suc h

se c tion. (B ) Em e rge nc y

and hum anita

rian situa tions.-- Notwithsta

nding subpa

ra gra ph (A), the Se c re ta

ry of State m ay issue a pa ssport, in e m e rge nc y

c i rc um sta

nc e s or for hum anita rian re a sons, to a

n individual de sc ribe d in suc h subpa ra gra ph. (2) R e voc a tion.-- (A) In ge ne ra l.--The Se c re t ary of State m ay

re voke a pa ssport pre viously

issue d to a

ny individual de sc ribe d in pa ra gra ph (1)(A).- 15 - (B ) Lim i tation for re turn to Unite d State s.--If the Se c re ta ry of Stat e de c ide s to re voke a pa ssport unde r subpa ra gra ph (A), the Se c re ta

ry of State , be fore re voc at ion, m ay -- (i) lim it a

pre viously issue d pa ssport only for re t urn tra ve l to theUnite d Stat e s; or (ii) issue a

lim ite d pa ssport tha

t only pe rm its re turn trave l to theUnite d State s. (3) Hold ha

rm le s s.--The Se c re ta

ry of the Tre a sury , the Se c re ta ry of Stat e , a

nd a ny of the ir de signe e s sha ll not belia ble to a n individual for a

ny a c tion with re spe c t to a

c e rtific a tion by

the C om m issione r of Inte rna l R e ve n ue unde r se c tion 7345 of title 26. In a c c orda

nc e with tha

t sta tute , onc e the Se c re ta

ry of State re c e i ve s notic e of the c e rtific a tion, theSe c re ta ry of State is re q

uire d (a bse nt e m e rge n c y

or hum anita rian c onside ra tions) to de ny a pa ssport (or re ne wa l of a pa ssport) to a
se riously de linque nt ta

xpa y e r an d is pe rm i tte d to re voke any pa ssport pre viously issue d to suc h pe rson. Se e 84 Fe d. R e g. 67184, 67184-67186 (De c . 9, 2019) (to be
c odifie d at 22 C .F.R . pt. 51). Unde r FAST Ac t se c t ion 32101(g), if the Se c re ta ry of Stat e re c e ive s notic e from the Se c re ta

ry of the Tre a sury

tha t a n individual no longe r ha s a se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt, the Se c re ta

ry of Stat e m

u st re m ove the c e rtific a tion from the individual’ s re c ord. 8

8 The othe r ope rative subse c tion tha t a pplie s to the Se c re ta

ry of State , FAST (c ontinue d...)- 16 -

D. Sum

m a ry of R e le v ant FAST Ac t Provisions To sum m a riz e the fore going, theFAST Ac t a uthoriz e s diffe re nt Gove rnm e nt
a c tors to m ake diffe re nt de c i sions a nd c arry out diffe re nt a c tions. Pursua nt to
se c t ion 7345, the

C om m issione r is c ha

rge d with de te rm ining whe the r a se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt e xists, m aking a

c e rtific a tion of tha

t fa c t, a nd notify ing the ta xpa y e r of tha t c e rtific a tion. Also pursua n t to se c t ion 7345, the

Se c re ta ry of the Tre a sury is c ha rge d with tra

nsm itting the c e rtific a tion m a de by the C o m m issione r to the Se c re ta

ry of State . B y c ontra st, pursua nt to FAST Ac t

se c tion 32101(e ), the Se c re t ary of Stat e a c ts with re spe c t to thepa ssport of a n individual who ha s be e n
c e rtifie d to ha

ve a se riously de linque nt ta

x de b t. The Se c re ta

ry of Stat e is pe rm itte d, in his discre tion, to re voke a pa ssport tha

t ha s a lre a dy

be e n issue d. And he is prohibite d from

issuing a ne w pa ssport or re n e w ing a n e xpiring one , a lthough the p rohibition is not a

bsolute . He re ta i ns disc re tion to issue a ne w pa ssport or
re ne w a n e xpiring one “ in e m e rge nc y c irc um sta

nc e s or for hum anita

ria n re a sons.” FAST Ac t se c . 32101(e )(1)(B ). In short, thea c tions of theC om m issione r, the Se c re ta

ry of the Tre a sury , a

nd the Se c re ta

ry of State are gove rne d by

se p ara te and distinc t

rule s, whic h im

pose

8 (...c ontinue d) Ac t se c tion 32101(f), 129 Sta t. at 1732, a

uthoriz e s the Se c re t ary

of State to re voke or de ny a pa ssport to a

n individual without a

va lid Soc ia l Se c urity

num be r.- 17 -

diffe re nt re sponsibilitie s on e a c h a nd gra nt the m va ry ing de gre e s of disc re tion in
c arry ing out those

re sponsibilitie s. III. Dr. R owe n ’ s M otion for Sum m ary Judgm e nt Dr. R owe n c l a im s he is e ntitle d to judgm e nt a s a m atte r of la

w. He argue s that se c tion 7345 is unc onstitutiona l be c a use it viola

te s the Fifth Am e ndm e n t’ s Due Proc e ss C la

u se . In a ddition, he

a dva nc e s a the ory (not se t out in the

pe tition) that se c tion 7345 viola

te s his right to tra

ve l unde r the UDHR . W e a ddre ss e a c h of Dr. R owe n’ s a

rgum e nts be l ow. W e note a s a

n initia l m a tte r that

se c tion 7345(e )(1) a

uthoriz e s us to

“ de te rm ine whe the r the c e rtific a tion wa s e rrone o us.” In ge ne ra l, a n a c tion is

“ e rrone ous” if it is “ [i] nc orre c t” or “ inc onsiste nt with the la w or the fa c ts.” B la c k’ s La

wDic tiona

ry 659 (10th e d . 2014); se e a lso M e rriam -W e bste r’ s C olle giate Dic tiona

ry 425 (11th e d. 2014) (de fining “ e rrone ous” a s “ c onta ining or
c ha ra c te riz e d by

e rror: M ISTAKEN” ); c f. Ka s pe r v. C om m issione r, 150 T.C . at 23 (e xam ining whe the r a

n a ge nc y ’ s de c i sion wa s “ ba se d on a n e rrone o us vie w of the la w or a c le arly e rrone ous a sse ssm e nt of the fa c ts” (quoting Fa rgo v. C om m issione r, 447 F.3d 706, 709 (9th C ir. 2006), a ff’ g T.C . M e m o . 2004-13)). Of c ourse , if se c tion 7345 were unc onstitutiona l, a ny c e rtific a tion m a de unde r that
se c t ion would be

inc onsiste nt with la

w a nd the re fore e rrone ous. Se e , e . g., Norton- 18 -

v. She lby C ty ., 118 U.S. 425, 442 (1886) (“ An unc onstitutiona

l a c t is not a

la w; it
c onfe rs no rights; it im

pose s no dutie s; it a ffords no prote c tion; it c re a te s no offic e ; it is, in le ga l c onte m

plation, a s inope ra tive a s though it ha d ne v e r be e n

pa sse d.” ). W e the re fore have a

uthority unde r se c tion 7345(e ) to re vie w Dr. R owe n’ s
argum e nts. Se e , e .g., B a tta t v. C om m issione r, 148 T.C . 32, 46 (2017) (noting tha t this C ourt, likea ll Fe de ra l c ourts, m ay a djudic a te c onstitutiona

l que stions tha

t a rise within its jurisdic

tion a nd c olle c ting a

uthoritie s); se e a l so, e .g., C ona rd v. C om m issione r, 154 T.C . 96, 97 (2020) (re v ie wing a nd upholding the
c onstitutiona

lity of se c tion 72(t) in a

de fic ie nc y

c a se ). A. Dr. R owe n ’ s Fifth Am e ndm e n t Argum e nt Dr. R owe n c l a im s tha

t “ I.R .C . § 7345 is unc onstitutiona l on its fa c e be c a

use it prohibits inte

rnationa l tra

v e l--whic h is a

funda m e nta l right e nshrine d in the Fifth Am e ndm e nt of the Unite d State s C onstitution.” Pe titione r’ s M otion for Sum m ary Judgm e nt, pa

ra . 18. The c la im

ha s no m e rit. The pla in te xt of se c tion 7345 im pose s no prohibition on inte rnationa l trave l. 9 Se c tion 7345 me re l y provide s a

proc e ss by

whic h the C om

m i ssione r m ay

9 Although the

c a ption of se c tion 7345 re a ds “ R e voc at ion or De nia l of Pa ssport in C a s e of C e rta in Tax De linque nc i e s,” the c a ption doe s not ha

ve the forc e of la

w, se e se c . 7806(b) (providing tha t no “ de sc riptive m a tte r re lating to the c onte nt of this title

[sha ll] be give n a

ny le ga l e ffe c t” ), and c a

nnot c loud the pla in words of the sta

tute , se e , e .g., Unite d

State s v. R e orga

niz e d C F & I Fa

bric a tors of (c ontinue d...)- 19 -

c e rtify to the Se c re ta

ry of the Tre a s ury

the e x iste nc e of a

se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt a nd the Se c re ta

ry of the Tre a sury

in turn tra

n sm its tha

t c e rtific a tion to the Se c re t ary of Stat e . 1 0 Se c tion 7345 e xpre ssly le ave s a ll pa ssport-re late d de c isions for “ a c tion” by

the Se c re ta

ry of State . Se e se c . 7345(a ). Any suc h a c tion is ba se d on the a uthority grante d to the Se c re ta ry of State pursua

nt to FAST Ac t
se c t ion 32101(e ), whic h

m ust be e xe rc ise d

in the judgm e nt a

nd disc re t ion of the Se c re t ary of Stat e . Se c tion 7345 (whic h, a s a l re a dy disc usse d , wa s e n a c te d by FAST Ac t se c t ion 32101(a)) sim ply doe s not a

uthoriz e any

pa ssport-re late d de c ision a nd the re fore doe s not prohibit inte rnationa l tra

ve l. Inde e d , the C om m issione r m ay

we ll not know whethe r a pa rtic ula r ta xpa y e r ha s a va lid pa ssport or intends to se e k one whe n the C o m m issione r m ake s his c e rtific a tion.

9 (...c ontinue d) Uta h, Inc ., 518 U.S. 213, 222-223 (1996) (a pply ing se c tion 7806(b) in inte rpre ting se c t ion 4971 a

nd a c c e pting theGove rnm e n t’ s disa v o wa l of re lia

nc e on a title he a ding); N.Y. & Pre sbyte rian Hosp. v. Unite d State s, 881 F.3d 877, 886 n.13 (Fe d. C ir. 2018) (c onc l uding tha t the C ourt of Fe d e ra l C l a im s e rre d by re ly ing on the t itle of se c tion 3202(b) ra the r tha n the te xt of the sta

t ute be c a use the C ode “ e xplic i tly

provide s tha

t its title s ha

ve no le ga l e ffe c t” ); se e a lso Antonin Sc a lia & B ry an A. Ga

rne r, R e a ding La

w: The Inte rpre tation of Le ga l Te xts 222 (2012) (obse rving tha

t “ a title or he a d i ng should ne ve r be a llowe d to ove rride the pla in words of a te xt” ).

1 0 Although the sta

tute e sta blishe s the proc e s s of c e rtific a tion a s de sc ribe d a bove , we have re c ogniz e d that, in pra c t ic e , the Se c re t ary of the Tre a sury

and the C om m issione r have c onde nse d the two steps into one . Se e R ue sc h v. C om m issione r, 154 T.C . 289, 292 n.3 (2020).- 20 -

Dr. R owe n a l so c la im s tha t se c tion 7345 “ giv[e s] the C om m issione r the powe r to orde r the re voc a tion or de nia l of the pa ssport of a U.S. c itiz e n * * * [a

nd] to prohibit U.S. na

tiona ls from

le aving the c o untry ,” se e Pe titione r’ s M otion for Sum m ary Judgm e nt, a

t pa ra . 17, a nd tha t “ the C om

m issione r ha s e x e rc ise d his powe r to re voke Dr. R owe n’ s pa ssport, prohibiting him from le aving the c ountry -- re ga rdle s s of the re a son for his tra ve ls,” id. a

t pa ra . 36. Ne ithe r c onte n tion is
c orre c t. First, se c tion 7345 give s the C om m issione r no powe r to orde r the re voc a tion or de nia l of a

pa ssport of a

U.S. c itiz e n. As we just disc usse d, se c tion 7345 sim ply
a uthoriz e s the C o m

m issione r to c e rtify

the e xiste nc e of a se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt ba se d on the pre s e nc e of c e rta i n tax-re late d fa c ts (for e xam ple , a n outsta nding lia bility for an a sse s se d tax in e xc e ss of a spe c ifie d am ount, thee x iste nc e of a lie n or le vy , a nd the a bse nc e of proc e e dings be fore IR S Appe a ls). A provision othe r tha n se c tion 7345 (FAST Ac t se c tion 32101(e )) give s a diffe re nt gove rnm e n t a c tor (the Se c re ta

ry of State ) powe r to a c t with re spe c t to a pa ssport a fte r re c e iving a
c e rtific a tion m a d e by

the C om m issione r. FAST Ac t

se c tion 32101(e ) re q

uire s the Se c re t ary of Stat e to e xe rc ise his own judgme n t in de t e rm ining whe the r to re voke a pa ssport a

nd whe the r to issuea

ne w pa ssport (or re n e w a n e xisting one ) for
e m e rge n c y

or hum a nita rian re a sons. In short, only the Se c re ta

ry of State , not the- 21 -

C om m issione r, m ay

re voke or de ny

a pa ssport, a

n d the Se c re ta

ry of State ’ s
a uthority doe s not de rive from se c tion 7345. Se c ond, a s fa

r a s the re c ord shows, Dr. Rowe n’ s pa ssport re m a ins in e ffe c t. Not only ha s the C om

m issione r (who ha s no suc h powe r) not re v oke d

it, but e ve n the Se c re ta

ry of State (the re le va

nt Gove rnm e nt a c tor with a uthority to a c t with
re spe c t to Dr. R owe n’ s pa ssport) ha s not ta k e n any a dve rse a c tion a g a inst Dr. R owe n. Dr. R owe n spe nds c onside ra ble e ffort in his m otion a

tte m pting to show tha

t the right to inte

rnationa l tra

ve l is a funda m e nta l right a

nd tha t its infringem e nt is subje c t to re v ie w unde r stric t sc rutiny . B ut, a s the fore g oing disc ussion m ake s
c le ar, we ne e d not de c ide the se issue s he re . R e ga rdle ss of the nature of the right to trave l inte rnationa lly

(funda m e nta l or not) a

nd re ga rdle s s of the sta

nda rd of re vie w unde r the C onstitution (stric t sc rutiny , inte rm e diate sc rutiny , or rationa l ba sis), se e , e .g., Euniquev. Powe ll, 302 F.3d 971 (9th C ir. 2002) (re fle c t ing diffe ring opinions on this issue ), a

sta t utory provision (se c tion 7345) tha t m e re ly provide s for the
c e rtific a tion of c e rta in ta

x-re lat e d fa c ts a

n d doe s not re stric t

in a ny m a nne r the right to internationa l tra

v e l c annot run a foul of the Due Proc e s s C la use of the Fifth Am e ndm e nt.- 22 -

The c onstitutiona

lity of the a

uthority grante d to the Se c re ta

ry of State by FAST Ac t se c t ion 32101(e ) is not be fore us, a nd we e xpre ss no vie w on tha t issue
. Se e W a sh. Sta

te Grange v. W a sh. Sta

te R e public an Party , 552 U.S. 442, 450 (2008) (“ [It is a ] funda

m e nta l princ iple of judic ia l re stra int tha t c ourts should
ne ithe r ‘ antic ipat e a

que stion of c o nstitutiona l la w[’ ] * * * nor ‘ form

ulate a rule of
c onstitutiona

l la w broa de r tha

n is re quire d by

the pre c ise fa c ts to whic h it is to be
a pplie d.’ ” (quoting Ashwa nde r v. Te nn. Va l le y

Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 346-347 (1936) (B rande is, J., c onc urring))). B
. Dr. R owe n ’ s UDHR Argum e nt Dr. R owe n a l so m a inta ins tha t se c tion 7345 viola

t e s his right to tra

ve l unde r the U DHR . Dr. R owe n obse rve s tha t, unde r Artic le 13 of the UDHR ,

“ (1) [e ] ve ry one h a s the right to fre e dom of m ove m e nt a

nd re s ide nc e within the borde rs of e a c h sta

te ” and “ (2) [e ] ve ry one ha s the right to le a v e any c ountry , inc l uding his own, a

nd to re turn to his c o untry .” Pe titione r’ s M otion for Sum m ary Judgm e nt, a

t pa ra . 52. Dr. R owe n furthe r obse rve s tha t the Supre m e C ourt “ ha s
re a s one d tha

t * * * [theUDHR ] doe s not ‘ of its own forc e im pose obliga

tions a s a
m a tte r of inte rnationa l la

w’ nor doe s it ‘ c re ate obliga tions e nforc e a

ble in the fe de ra l c o urts.’ ” Id. at

pa ra . 53 (quoting Sosa

v. Alva re z -M a c ha in, 542 U.S. 692, 734-735 (2004)). Ye t, Dr. R owe n a rgue s tha t “ the Supre m e C ourt [ha s] sta t e d the- 23 -

UDHR doe s ‘ bind the Unite d State s a s a m a tte r of inte rnationa l la w.’ ” Id. (quoting Sosa , 542 U.S. a

t 735). This la

tte r state m e n t is sim

ply wrong. The Supre m e C ourt
use d the la ngua ge Dr. R owe n quote s not with re s pe c t to theUDHR but with
re spe c t to theInte rnationa l C ove na n t on C ivil a

nd Politic a l R ights (the

“ C ove na nt” ). Sosa , 542 U.S. a

t 735 (“ [A] lthough the

C ove na nt doe s bind the Unite d State s a s a

m a tte r of inte rnationa l la w, the Unite d State s ratifie d the C ove na nt on the e xpre s s unde rsta nding tha t it wa s not se lf-e xe c uting a n d so did not itse lf c re ate obliga

tions e nforc e a

ble in the fe d e ra l c ourts.” (Em pha sis a dde d.)) R e ga rdle ss of Dr. R owe n’ s m isre a ding of Sosa , howe ve r, a s with his
c onstitutiona

l a rgum e nt c onc e rning se c tion 7345, we ne e d not de c ide he re the
sc ope o f the UDHR

or its a pplic a b ility in the Unite d State s. W

hat e ve r that sc ope
and wha te ve r the U D HR ’ s a

pplic a bility in the Unite d State s , se c tion 7345 im pose s no lim i t on the right to tra ve l. Thus, the

UDHR c annot provideany

grounds for inva lida t ing the C o m

m issione r’ s c e rtific at ion unde r se c tion 7345. IV. The C om

m issione r’ s C ross-M otion for Sum m ary Judgm e n t In his c ross-m otion for sum m ary judgm e n t, the C om

m issione r m a inta ins tha

t his c e rtific a tion wa s prope r and tha t he is e ntitle d to judgm e nt a s a m a tte r of la

w. As we e xpla in be low, we a gre e .- 24 -

A. Dr. R owe n ’ s Proc e dura l Due Proc e s s C ha lle nge and Sta tute of Lim ita tions C la im W e be gin by

c onside ring two a

rgum e nts tha

t Dr. R owe n ra ise d in his pe tition but c hose not to a dva n c e in his m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt. Spe c ific a lly , Dr. R owe n a lle ge d in his pe tition tha t se c tion 7345 de

prive s him

of proc e d ura l due proc e ss by

“ c e rtify ing his de

b t for pa ssport re voc a tion” without
c e rta in spe c ifie d proc e d

ura l sa fe gua

rds. Dr. R o we n a lso a sse rte d in his pe tition that the pe riod of limi tations m ay have run a s to c e rta in unide ntifie d portions of his unde rly ing ta

x de b t. The C om

m issione r m

ust de fe a t the se c la im s in orde r to pre v a i l on his motion for sum m ary judgm e nt, a

nd we now a

na l y z e the m in turn. 1. Dr. R owe n ’ s Proc e dura l Due Proc e s s C la im Dr. R owe n ’ s pe tition a lle ge d tha t the C om m issione r fa ile d to provide
a de quate notic e and opportunity for a he aring be fore he c e rtifie d Dr. R owe n’ s de bt. B ut Dr. R owe n did not inc lude that a rgum e nt in his motion for sum m ary judgm e nt. And a lthough the

C om m issione r a ffirm a tive ly

a lle ge d in his motion for sum m ary judgm e nt tha

t Dr. R owe n wa s not deprive d of proc e dura l due proc e s s, Dr. R owe n did not re spond to tha

t a rgum e nt. W e c onc lude , the re fore , tha t Dr. R owe n ha s
a ba ndone d a ny proc e dura l due proc e ss c la i m and tha t the C om m issione r is e ntitle d to judgm e nt a s a

m a tte r of la

w on this issue . E.g., Unite d State s v. TDC M gm t. C orp., 827 F.3d 1127, 1130 (D.C . C ir. 2016) (c onc luding a n a rgum e nt wa s- 25 -

“ forfe it” be c a

use the pa rty tha t ha d a dva

nc e d it did “

not furthe r de ve lop it (or e ve n
m e ntion it aga in) a fte r * * * [a ] ‘ single , c onc lusory sta te m e nt’ ” (quoting B ry ant v. Gate s, 532 F.3d 888, 898 (D.C . C ir. 2008))); Sc hne ide r v. Kissinge r, 412 F.3d 190, 200 n.1 (D.C . C ir. 2005) (“ It is not en ough m e re l y to m e ntion a possibleargum e nt in the m ost ske le ta l wa

y , le aving the c ourt to do c ounse l’ s work[.] * * * [A] litiga nt ha s a n obliga tion to spe ll out its a

rgum e nts squa

re ly an d distinc tly , or e lse fore ve r hold its pe a c e .” (quoting Unite d State s v. Za nnino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st C ir. 1990))); a c c ord M a s ia s v. EPA, 906 F.3d 1069, 1077 (D.C . C ir. 2018) (sa m e ); Unite d State s v. Alonso, 48 F.3d 1536, 1544 (9th C ir. 1995) (sa

m e ). 2. Dr. R owe n ’ s Statute of Lim ita tions C la im Dr. R owe n a l so a lle ge d in his pe tition tha t som e portion of his lia

bilitie s m ay be une nforc e a

b le , but a ga in he did not ra ise this a rgum e nt in his motion for
sum m ary judgm e nt. The C om

m issione r’ s c ross-m otion for sum m a ry judgm e nt
argue s tha

t, while Dr. R owe n ha s m a de a va gue a lle gation tha

t the pe riod of lim ita tions m ay a pply , he ha s not ide ntifie d a ny “ spe c ific c o m

pone nt of his
se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt” for whic h

c olle c tion m ay

be ba rre d by the pe riod of lim ita tions. Dr. Rowe n offe re d no re sponse to this a rgum e nt. As with re spe c t to Dr. R owe n’ s proc e dura l due proc e ss c l a im , we c ould re ly on Dr. R o we n’ s- 26 -

a ba ndonm e nt of the argum e nt a nd de c i de the issue in fa

vor of the C om

m issione r on tha t ba sis a lone
. B ut the re is m ore . The e xpira tion of a pe riod of limita

t ions is a n a ffirm a tive de fe nse , a nd “ t he pa rty ra ising it m

ust spe c ific a lly

ple a d it a nd c arry the burde n of proving its a

pplic a bility .” Am e sbury

Apa rtm e nts, Ltd. v. C om

m issione r, 95 T.C
. 227, 240 (1990). Dr. R

o we n ha s m a d e no e ffort on this front. M ore ove r, e ve n if a portion of thetax de bt a

t issue he re we re ba

rre d by the pe riod of limi tations on
c olle c tion, unle ss tha

t portion re duc e s Dr. R owe n’ s ba la nc e be low $51,000, it would not a ffe c t

the c orre c tne ss of the C o m m i ssione r’ s c e rtific a tion. Aga in,
ne ithe r Dr. R o we n’ s ple a dings nor his sum m ary judgm e nt m otion provide s a ny
c lue a s to the am ount of his ta x de bt tha t is no longer c olle c tible
. Fina lly , the a dm i nistra

tive re c ord c onfirm s tha

t the re is no ba sis for Dr. R owe n’ s lim ita

t ions pe riod spe c ulation. Thea d m inistra t ive re c ord inc lude s
c e rtifie d Form s 4340, C e rtific a t e of Asse ssm e nts, Pa ym e nts, a nd Othe r Spe c ifie d M a tte rs, 1 1 for Dr. R owe n’ s tax y e ars 1994, 1996, 1997, a n d 2003 through 2007.

1 1 A Form 4340 is a

c e rtifie d re c ord of a sse ssm e nts re lating to a pa rtic ula r ta xpa y e r for a pa rtic ula r ta x y e a r. As a c e rtifie d re c ord, it is “

pre sum p tive e vide nc e that a va lid a sse s sm e n t of ta

x ha s be e n m a de ” and “ whe re the taxpa y e r c a n point to no e vide n c e of a

ny irre gula rity * * * the pre sum

ption of a va lid a sse ssm e n t

re m a ins inta c t.” Lunsford v. C om m i ssione r, 117 T.C . 183, 187-188 (2001); se e a l so B ua iz v. Unite d Stat e s, 521 F. Supp. 2d 93, 96 (D.D.C . 2007) (“ A c e rtifie d tra nsc ript (Form 4340) re fle c t ing a

n a sse s sm e nt is pre sum

ptive proof of the taxpa

y e r’ s (c ontinue d...)- 27 -

The se and othe r doc um e n tation in the re c ord show tha

t the pe riod of lim

ita tions on
c olle c tion re m a ins ope n for a ll re le va nt y e ars. B a se d on the fore going, we c onc lude tha t the C om m i ssione r is e ntitle d to a ruling in his fa

vor with re spe c t to Dr. R owe n’ s lim ita tions c l a im
. B
. No Error in C e rtific a tion of Se riously De l inque nt Tax De bt W ith Dr. R owe n’ s c onstitutiona l obje c tions a

nd the pre lim ina

ry m a tte rs out of the wa y , we turn ne xt to the spe c ific re quire m e nts of se c tion 7345 a nd

“ de te rm ine whe the r the c e rtific a tion wa s e rrone o us.” Se c . 7345(e )(1). As note d
a bove , ge ne ra lly , a

n a c tion is “ e rrone ous” if it is “ inc o nsiste nt with the la wor the fa c t s.” B la c k’ s La

w Dic tiona

ry 659 (10th e d. 2014). W e the re fore c onside r whe the r the re quire m e nts of the sta tute we re sat isfie d in Dr. R owe n’ s c a se . (W e note tha t Dr. R owe n offe rs no a

rgum e nt to thec o ntra

ry . ) W he n the C om

m issione r m a de the se c tion 7345 c e rtific a tion, Dr. Rowe n
owe d at le a st $474,847 re lat ing to ta x y e ars 1994, 1996, 1997, a nd 2003 through 2007. 1 2 For a ll y e ars at issue , the IR S issue d to Dr. R owe n notic e s of Fe de ra l tax lie n filing or notic e s of inte nt to le vy . Dr. R owe n ha d a n opportunity

to se e k

1 1 (...c ontinue d ) lia bility and e sta blishe s the Gove rnm e nt’ s prim a fa c ie c a se .” (c iting B rounste in v. Unite d State s, 979 F.2d 952, 954 (3d C i r. 1992))).
1 2 In ge ne ra l, inte re st c ontinue s to run on a tax de b t until it is pa

id. Se c . 6601.- 28 -

re vie w in this C ourt for a ll y e ars at issue , a nd he in fa c t

did se e k re vie wfor tax y e ars 2003 through 2007. This C ourt susta ine d the C om m issione r’ s de te rm i nations for those

y e ars. For a ll othe r y e ars, Dr. R owe n’ s right to suc h
re vie w in this C ourt ha s la pse d. The re is nothing in the re c ord to prove that Dr. R owe n ha s e nte re d into a n a gre e m e nt to pa

y his lia bilitie s pursua

nt to e i the r
se c t ion 6159 or se c tion 7122 or re que ste d re lie f unde r se c tion 6015. Ta ke n toge the r, the s e fa c ts e sta

blish tha t Dr. R o we n fa lls squa

re ly within the

de finition,
and outsidethe e xc e p tions, se t forth in se c tion 7345(b) for a ta xpa y e r owing a
se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt. C onse que ntly , we c o nc lude tha t the C om m issione r did not e rr in c e rtify ing Dr. R owe n’ s se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt. B e c a use the re c ord supports the C o m m issione r’ s c e rtific a tion of Dr. Rowe n
a s owing a

se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt within the

m e aning of se c tion 7345(b), we
c onc lude tha

t the C om m issione r is e ntitle d

to sum m ary judgm e nt. V. C onc lusion In light of the

disc ussion a

bove , we will de ny Dr. R o we n’ s m otion for
sum m ary judgm e nt a

nd gra nt the C om

m issione r’ s c ross-m o tion for sum m ary judgm e nt.- 29 -

To re fle c t the fore going,
An a ppropria te orde r an d de c ision will be e nte re d
. R e vie we d by

the C o urt. FOLEY, GALE, GUSTAFSON, PAR IS, M ORR ISON, KER

R IGAN, B UC H, NEGA, PUGH, ASHFOR D, UR DA, C OPELAND, JONES, GR EAVES, M AR SHALL, a

nd W EILER , JJ., a gre e with this opinion of the C ourt.- 30 -

M AR VEL, J., c onc urring: The opinion of the C ourt de c i de s the issue s
ra ise d in the m o tions for sum m ary judgm e nt by

foc using on the

unique fa c ts a

nd the l ite ra l argum e n ts pre s e nte d by the pa rtie s . I c onc ur in the re sult--pa rtic ula rly give n tha t no a dve rse a c tion with re spe c t to Dr. R owe n’ s pa ssport ha s be e n ta ke n y e t a s a re sult of these c tion 7345 c e rtific a tion. I writese pa ra te l y to point out tha

t the o pinion of the

C ourt doe s not fore c lose a c onstitutiona l c ha lle nge , in a

future
c a se with a

ppropria te fa c ts a nd squa re ly pre se nte d

argum e nts, to the e ntire tax
c olle c tion m e c ha

nism c re a te d by

the Fixing Am e ric a ’ s Surfa c e Transporta tion Ac t (FAST Ac t), Pub. L. No. 114-94, se c . 32101, 129 Sta t. at 1729, pursua

nt to the jurisdic tion gra

nte d in se c tion 7345(e )(1). C ongre ss e na c t e d se c tion 7345 a s one pa rt of the inte rde pa

rtm e nta l tax
c olle c tion m e c ha

nism c re a te d by

FAST Ac t se c . 32101. Tha t inte rde pa

rtm e nta l tax
c olle c tion m e c ha

nism c om prise s two pa

rts: (1) c e rtific a tion of a

taxpa y e r’ s
se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt unde r se c tion 7345 a nd (2) a n a dve rse pa ssport a c tion that c an ta ke the form

of e ithe r a

disc re tiona

ry re v oc a tion of a

n e xisting pa ssport or the m andatory

de nia l of a

pa ssport a

pplic a tion or re ne w a l. C e rtific a tion ha s no othe r func tion tha

n to ope n the door to a

n a d ve rse pa s sport a c tion, a

nd a n a dve rse pa ssport a c tion c annot oc c ur unle ss a n d until the

c e rtific a tion of a

taxpa y e r’ s
se riously de linque nt ta

x de bt.- 31 -

Only one provision of FAST Ac t se c . 32101 a uthoriz e s judic i a l re vie wtha t
wa ive s sove re i gn im

m unity with re spe c t to thetax c o lle c t ion m e c h anism it c re a te s :
se c t ion 7345(e ). Se c t ion 7345(e )(1) c onfe rs jurisdic tion on this C ourt a nd the Distric t C ourts to “ de te rm i ne whe the r the c e rtific a tion wa s e rrone ous” , a nd it provide s tha

t this C o urt or the a

ppropria te Distric t C ourt sha ll e xe rc ise “ sole jurisdic tion” ove r a

taxpa y e r’ s c la im s re lating to c e rtific a tion. C ongre ss im m uniz e d the Se c re ta

ry of Tre a sury

and the Se c re ta

ry of State from

any lia bility
re lating to the ir a c tions unde r FAST Ac t se c . 32101. FAST Ac t se c . 32101(e )(3) (c odifie d at 22 U.S.C . se c . 2714a (e )(3) (2018)). Dr. R owe n ra ise d issue s c ha lle nging thec onstitutiona lity of FAST Ac t se c . 32101 in substa

n c e but phra se d the m

a s c ha lle nge s to se c tion 7345. The opinion of the C ourt ha s c hose n to a

na ly z e and de c ide those issue s with re spe c t to se c t ion 7345 only . B e c a

use Dr. R owe n’ s a

rgum e nts a

re not a m o de l of pre c i sion, I a gre e that the a pproa c h ta

k e n in the opinion of the

C ourt is re a sona

ble . Dr. R owe n is the
m a ste r of his c la im s, a

nd it is fa ir to hold him to his words. The struc t ure and wording of FAST Ac t se c . 32101 sugge sts, howe ve r, tha t a que stion re m a ins re ga

rding the sc ope of the jurisdic tiona l gra nt in se c tion 7345(e ). If the tax c olle c tion m e c ha nism of FAST Ac t se c . 32101 re sults in a n a dve rse pa ssport a c tion suc h a s the re voc a tion of a n e xisting pa ssport or there fusa l to- 32 -

re ne w a pa ssport, a

c onstitutiona

l c ha lle nge to the e ntire tax c olle c tion m e c ha nism of FAST Ac t se c . 32101 is like ly ; a nd the argum e nts by the a ffe c te d taxpa y e r a bout the i m p a irm e nt of his right to inte rnationa l tra

ve l a re not so e a sily avoide d. 1 B e c a use the opinion of the

C ourt ha s tre a te d Dr. R owe n’ s c o nstitutiona l
c ha lle nge a s one dire c te d only to se c t ion 7345 a

n d be c a use Dr. R owe n’ s pa ssport ha s not y e t be e n re voke d, the opinion of the C ourt should be re a d na rrowly and

1 In fa c t, sim ila

r argum e nts ha

ve be e n m a de in c a se s whe re an a dve rse pa ssport a c tion ha s a lre a d y oc c urre d a

nd those c la im s a

re pe nding in other c ourts. Se e Jone s v. M nuc hin, No. 21-10816 (11th C ir. file d M ar. 8, 2021); se e a lso M a e hr v. U.S. De p’ t of Sta

te , No. 20-1124 (10th C ir. file d M ar. 26, 2020). In a t le a st one of those c a se s the De p a

rtm e nt of Justic e ha s be e n c onsiste nt a t both thetria l le ve l and the a ppe l late le v e l tha

t se c . 7345(e ) provide s the a pplic a ble wa ive r of sove re ign im

m unity --e ve n for c onstitutiona l c ha lle nge s--arguing tha

t if the sta tute we re unc onstitutiona

l, the n the c e rtific a tion would be “ e rrone ous” within the m e aning of se c . 7345(e ). Se e Unite d State s’ Partia l Obje c tion to M a gistra te ’ s R e port a n d R e c om

m e ndation a

t 2, M a e hr v. U.S. Sta

te De p ’ t, No. 1:18-c v-02948 (D. C olo. file d Oc t . 10, 2019) (“ This e ntire c a se arose be c a use of 26 U.S.C
. § 7345, in the

Inte rna l R e ve nue C ode , a nd § 7345(e ) provide s a

wa ive r. * * * If the re gim e we re unc onstitutiona l, * * * c e rtific a tion would pre sum a b ly be im prope r or ille g a l, i.e ., ‘ e rrone ous.’ ” ); B rie f for the Appe lle e at 5, M a e h r v. U.S. De p’ t of Stat e , No. 20-1124 (10th C ir. file d July 22, 2020) (“ The Gove rnm e nt sta nds by its position be low tha

t the Distric t C ourt ha d jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1331 a n d that I.R .C . § 7345(e ) provide d the a pplic a ble wa ive r of sove re ign im m unity .” ); se e a lso De fe nda

nts’ C onsolida

t e d R e ply in Support of De fe nda

nts’ M o tion for Sum m ary Judgm e nt a

nd R e sponse to Pla intiff’ s C ross-M otion for Sum m ary Judgm e nt a

t 17-24, Jone s v. M nuc hin, No. 1:19-c v -00222 (S.D. Ga . file d July 1, 2020) (a rguing them e rits of thetaxpa y e r’ s substa

n tive due proc e s s c ha lle nge to the c e rtific a tion re gim e in a c a s e file d pursua nt to se c . 7345(e ) and furthe r for the dism issa l of a ll na

m e d offic i a ls a s de fe nda

nts on thegrounds tha

t the only prope r pa rty to the suit is the

Unite d State s pursua

nt to the te rm s of the a

pplic a ble wa ive r of sove re ign im

m unity found in se c . 7345(e )(1)).- 33 -

doe s not fore c lose a

broa de r c onstitutiona

l c ha lle nge to FAST Ac t se c . 32101 in a n
a ppropria te c a se brought unde r se c tion 7345(e ).