Court Opinion

ID: 9955952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 20:00:50.797684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:42.130394
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12244       Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2024   Page: 1 of 11

                                                       [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                       In the
                  United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eleventh Circuit

                              ____________________

                                    No. 23-12244
                              Non-Argument Calendar
                              ____________________

        ASHLEY C. SCOTT,
                                     Plaintiﬀ-Counter Defendant-Appellant,
        versus
        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
        INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

                 Defendant-Counter Claimant-Third Party Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,

        MICHAEL A JENKINS,

                                                                 Defendant,
USCA11 Case: 23-12244      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2024     Page: 2 of 11

        2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-12244

        TYRENE SCOTT,

                               Defendant-Third Party Defendant-Appellee.

                             ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Middle District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cv-00494-BJD-MCR
                            ____________________

        Before ROSENBAUM, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               This is the fourth appeal in a tax case that has lasted more
        than a decade. In 2021, after multiple retrials, a federal jury deter-
        mined that Ashley Scott was a “responsible person” who was indi-
        vidually liable for unpaid payroll taxes of her father’s company for
        two tax quarters. See 26 U.S.C. § 6672. The district court entered
        judgment for the government in the amount of $166,641.74, plus
        interest, and we affirmed on appeal, bringing an end to the under-
        lying tax dispute. See Scott v. United States, No. 21-13098, 2022 WL
        16547995 (11th Cir. Oct. 31, 2022).
              Now, Scott seeks to recover reasonable litigation costs as a
        “prevailing party” under the qualified-offer rule. See 26 U.S.C.
        § 7430(c)(4)(E). She contends that, because she offered the govern-
        ment $250 for each of the original thirteen tax quarters at issue, she
USCA11 Case: 23-12244      Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 03/29/2024     Page: 3 of 11

        23-12244               Opinion of the Court                        3

        is entitled to recover her post-offer litigation costs for the eleven
        tax quarters for which the government recovered nothing. The
        district court found that Scott was not a prevailing party under the
        qualified-offer rule because the tax liability reflected in the judg-
        ment ($166,641.74) well exceeded the tax liability proposed in her
        qualified offer ($3,250). After careful review, we affirm.
                                         I.
                Scott worked as a corporate secretary for her father’s com-
        pany, Scott Air, during times when the company failed to pay pay-
        roll taxes. In 2010, the IRS assessed a penalty against Scott in the
        amount of $680,472.28, which reflected the company’s unpaid pay-
        roll taxes for thirteen quarters between 2004 and 2007. The IRS
        invoked 26 U.S.C. § 6672, under which a person responsible for
        paying a company’s payroll taxes can be held personally liable for
        willfully failing to pay such taxes.
               Scott responded to the assessment by mailing the govern-
        ment a check for $300, covering the amount owed by one em-
        ployee for one quarter, and requesting that the government abate
        the remainder of the assessment against her. When the govern-
        ment failed to respond, she sued for a refund of the $300 and a dec-
        laration that she was not liable for the company’s unpaid payroll
        taxes. The government initiated a counterclaim against Scott for
        the full amount of the assessment.
              After extensive proceedings not directly relevant to this case,
        a federal jury determined that Scott was a “responsible person”
        who was liable for unpaid payroll taxes for two of the original
USCA11 Case: 23-12244         Document: 29-1         Date Filed: 03/29/2024         Page: 4 of 11

        4                          Opinion of the Court                       23-12244

        thirteen quarters: the third quarter of 2005 and the fourth quarter
        of 2006. 1 The district court entered judgment for the government
        in the amount of $166,641.74, plus interest, and then denied Scott’s
        motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. We af-
        firmed. Scott, 2022 WL 16547995, at *5.
                                               II.
               Meanwhile, in May 2021, Scott filed a motion for attorney’s
        fees under 26 U.S.C. § 7430. As relevant here, Scott claimed that
        she was a “prevailing party” under § 7430 because she had submit-
        ted a “qualified offer” of $3,250 (or $250 per quarter) for all thirteen

        1 This case has a long history. In 2016, we reversed the district court’s ruling
        at summary judgment that Scott was a “responsible person” as to all thirteen
        tax quarters, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed on that issue.
        Scott v. United States, 825 F.3d 1275, 1282 (11th Cir. 2016). But we affirmed
        findings that Scott acted “willfully”—an essential element to recovery under
        § 6672—as to ten of the thirteen quarters. Id. Thus, ten quarters remained on
        which the government could prevail at trial by showing that Scott was a re-
        sponsible person. On remand, after trial in February 2017, a jury found that
        Scott was a responsible person for three quarters, but not for the other seven
        quarters. Scott appealed a second time, and we vacated and remanded for a
        new trial, concluding that the district court committed plain error in instruct-
        ing the jury. Scott v. United States, 776 F. App’x 612, 615 (11th Cir. 2019). An-
        other jury trial was held in April 2021 on the remaining three quarters, and the
        jury found that Scott was a responsible person for Scott Air for the third quar-
        ter of 2005 and the fourth quarter of 2006, but not for the second quarter of
        2007. Scott appealed a third time, but we affirmed. Scott v. United States, No.
        21-13098, 2022 WL 16547995 (11th Cir. Oct. 31, 2022).
USCA11 Case: 23-12244      Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 03/29/2024    Page: 5 of 11

        23-12244               Opinion of the Court                         5

        tax quarters originally at issue. Because the government recovered
        less than $250 for eleven of the thirteen quarters, her argument
        went, she was the prevailing party as to those quarters. The gov-
        ernment responded that Scott was not a prevailing party under §
        7430’s qualified-offer rule because she had made one offer of
        $3,250—not thirteen separate offers. And that offer was less than
        the judgment of $166,641.74.
               A magistrate judge recommended denying Scott’s motion,
        reasoning that the statute called for a comparison between the total
        offer ($3,250) and the total recovery ($166,641.74), and that Scott’s
        piecemeal, quarter-by-quarter approach “defies logic.” Scott filed
        objections, but the district court overruled them, agreeing with the
        magistrate judge that Scott was not entitled to attorney’s fees un-
        der a “plain reading” of § 7430. Scott timely appeals.
                                         III.
               We review the denial of a motion for litigation costs under
        26 U.S.C. § 7430 for an abuse of discretion. Cooper v. United States,
        60 F.3d 1529, 1531 (11th Cir. 1995). The district court’s “interpre-
        tation of a statutory section of the Internal Revenue Code is a ques-
        tion of law that is reviewed de novo.” Fla. Country Clubs, Inc. v.
        Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 404 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 2005).
               Section 7430 authorizes an award of “reasonable litigation
        costs,” including attorney’s fees, to private parties who prevail in a
        court proceeding, brought by or against the United States, concern-
        ing federal taxes. 26 U.S.C. § 7430(a). “Congress enacted § 7430 to
        deter abusive actions or overreaching by the IRS and to enable
USCA11 Case: 23-12244       Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2024      Page: 6 of 11

        6                       Opinion of the Court                  23-12244

        taxpayers to vindicate their rights regardless of their economic cir-
        cumstances.” Cooper, 60 F.3d at 1530 (cleaned up).
                To recover under § 7430, the taxpayer must prove that she
        is a “prevailing party,” among other requirements. Id. at 1530–31.
        The general rule is that a taxpayer is the prevailing party if she
        meets two requirements: (1) she has “substantially prevailed” with
        respect to either the amount in controversy or the most significant
        issue or set of issues, 26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(4)(A)(i); and (2) the gov-
        ernment’s position was not “substantially justified,” id.
        § 7430(c)(4)(B)(i).
               Besides the general rule, a special rule permits a taxpayer to
        be treated as a prevailing party in cases when the judgment is less
        than the taxpayer’s unaccepted offer to settle the tax liability. See
        26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(4)(E). The rule states that the taxpayer
               shall be treated as the prevailing party if the liability
               of the taxpayer pursuant to the judgment in the pro-
               ceeding (determined without regard to interest) is
               equal to or less than the liability of the taxpayer which
               would have been so determined if the United States
               had accepted a qualified offer of the party under sub-
               section (g).
        Id. § 7430(c)(4)(E)(i). The determination is “made by reference to
        the last qualified offer made with respect to the tax liability at issue
        in the proceeding.” Id. § 7430(c)(4)(E)(iii)(I).
             So, under the qualified-offer special rule, we must compare
        two things: (1) the “liability of the taxpayer pursuant to the
USCA11 Case: 23-12244       Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2024      Page: 7 of 11

        23-12244                Opinion of the Court                          7

        judgment in the proceeding”; and (2) the liability proposed in the
        taxpayer’s “last qualified offer made with respect to the tax liability
        at issue.” If the judgment’s liability is “equal to or less than” the
        offer’s liability, the taxpayer “shall be treated as the prevailing
        party.” 26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(4)(E)(i). Treasury Regulations define
        the relevant “judgment” as “the cumulative determinations of the
        court concerning the adjustments at issue and litigated to a deter-
        mination in the court proceeding.” Treas. Reg. § 301.7430-7(a).
                 Section 7430(g) defines a “qualified offer” to mean a written
        offer which, among other requirements, “specifies the offered
        amount of the taxpayer’s liability (determined without regard to
        interest).” 26 U.S.C. § 7430(g)(1)(B). According to Treasury Regu-
        lations, a qualified offer must specify an amount “with respect to
        all of the adjustments at issue in the administrative or court proceed-
        ing at the time the offer is made.” Treas. Reg. § 301.7430-7(c)(3)
        (emphasis added). It must be an offer that, if accepted, “fully re-
        solve[s] the taxpayer’s liability . . . for the type or types of tax and
        the taxable year or years at issue in the proceeding.” Id.
               Where “multiple tax years” are at issue, a taxpayer may
        make a qualified offer “for less than all of the tax years involved” if
        adjustments in different tax years arise from “separate and distinct
        issues.” Id. But the offer still “must resolve all of the issues for the
        tax years covered by the offer and also must cover all tax years in
        the proceeding affected by those issues.” Id.
USCA11 Case: 23-12244       Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2024      Page: 8 of 11

        8                       Opinion of the Court                  23-12244

                                          IV.
                Scott maintains that she made thirteen distinct qualified of-
        fers to settle each of the tax quarters at issue, rather than one single
        offer to settle her total liability. That claim, however, is contrary
        to the terms of her offer and to the requirements for a qualified
        offer.
               As the district court observed, the evidence shows that Scott
        made one offer, rather than thirteen separate offers, in her letter to
        the government dated October 17, 2012. The letter stated that it
        constituted a singular “qualified offer” under § 7430(g), in that
        “[i]t”—meaning, the offer—met each of the statutory require-
        ments. The letter proposed that, “as her qualified offer,” Scott
        would be liable for $250 for each of the thirteen quarters at issue,
        which were listed out separately in a chart, for a total of $3,250. An
        email from Scott’s attorney to the government dated October 18,
        2012, likewise described the letter as a singular “Qualified Offer.”
        Nothing in the letter indicated that there were thirteen separate of-
        fers for thirteen quarters, or that the government could accept of-
        fers for some quarters and reject offers for other quarters.
                Moreover, interpretating the letter as a single offer is the
        only construction consistent with § 7430 and governing regula-
        tions. Scott acknowledges the regulations, but she claims that they
        “actually support [her] position, not the [g]overnment’s.” Not so.
        If viewed in piecemeal fashion, none of the purported thirteen of-
        fers of $250 would count as a qualified offer under the regulations.
        Each offer was for an amount with respect to fewer than “all of the
USCA11 Case: 23-12244       Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 03/29/2024     Page: 9 of 11

        23-12244                Opinion of the Court                           9

        adjustments at issue” in the court proceeding. And had an individ-
        ual offer been accepted, it would not have “fully resolve[d] the tax-
        payer’s liability . . . for the type or types of tax and the taxable year
        or years at issue in the proceeding.” Treas. Reg. § 301.7430-7(c)(3).
        Nor could the piecemeal offers be meaningfully compared to the
        “judgment,” 26 U.S.C. § 7530(c)(4)(E)(i), which refers to “the cumu-
        lative determinations of the court concerning the adjustments at is-
        sue,” Treas. Reg. § 301.7430-7(a) (emphasis added).
               Scott relies on a provision in the regulations concerning
        cases that involve multiple tax years to argue that she could have
        made qualified offers for each of the thirteen quarters at issue. But
        we cannot simply substitute the word “quarter” for “year” in the
        regulations, as Scott suggests. See Landau v. RoundPoint Mortg. Serv.
        Corp., 925 F.3d 1365, 1369 (11th Cir. 2019) (“When we construe reg-
        ulations, we begin with the language of the regulation, just as we
        do for statutes.”); Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 976 (11th Cir. 2000)
        (“[T]he role of the judicial branch is to apply statutory language,
        not to rewrite it.”). And the regulations clearly state that a partial
        qualified offer still “must resolve all of the issues for the tax years
        covered by the offer.” Treas. Reg. § 301.7430-7(c)(3). An offer cov-
        ering a particular quarter of a tax year simply does not meet that
        requirement.
               In contrast, Scott’s October 2012 letter, viewed as a single
        offer, counts as a qualified offer because it specified an amount
        ($3,250) for “all of the adjustments at issue,” the acceptance of
        which would have “fully resolved [Scott’s] liability” for the
USCA11 Case: 23-12244      Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 03/29/2024      Page: 10 of 11

        10                      Opinion of the Court                   23-12244

        penalties at issue in the proceeding. Treas. Reg. § 301.7430-7(c)(3).
        And we can readily compare it to the judgment in the proceeding,
        which awarded the government a total of $166,641.74, represent-
        ing “the cumulative determinations of the court concerning the ad-
        justments at issue and litigated to a determination in the court pro-
        ceeding.” Treas. Reg. § 301.7430-7(a). Because the liability under
        the judgment was not “equal to or less than” the liability under the
        qualified offer, it follows that Scott cannot be treated as a prevailing
        party under the qualified-offer rule. See 26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(4)(E)(i).
                Finally, in the course of her briefing on the qualified-offer
        rule, Scott makes several references to the general prevailing-party
        rules, contending that she substantially prevailed and that the gov-
        ernment’s position was not substantially justified. The qualified-
        offer rule, however, operates on its own terms. See 26 U.S.C.
        § 7430(c)(4)(E)(iv) (stating that the qualified-offer rule “shall not ap-
        ply to a party which is a prevailing party” under the general rule).
        So those usual requirements are not relevant to the inquiry.
                Nor has Scott shown that she qualifies as a prevailing party
        under the general rule. See 26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(4)(A)(i). Even as-
        suming she substantially prevailed, the magistrate judge found that
        the government’s position that Scott was a responsible person lia-
        ble for § 6672 penalties was substantially justified. That finding pre-
        vents Scott from being treated as a prevailing party. See 26 U.S.C.
        § 7430(c)(4)(B)(i) (“A party shall not be treated as the prevailing
        party . . . if the United States establishes that the position of the
        United States in the proceeding was substantially justified.”). Scott
USCA11 Case: 23-12244         Document: 29-1         Date Filed: 03/29/2024          Page: 11 of 11

        23-12244                   Opinion of the Court                                 11

        did not address that finding in her objections, so the district court
        considered the issue abandoned and adopted the magistrate judge’s
        report. And Scott has not adequately briefed the issue on appeal. 2
        See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir.
        2014) (“A party fails to adequately ‘brief’ a claim when he does not
        plainly and prominently raise it, for instance by devoting a discrete
        section of his argument to those claims.”) (quotation marks omit-
        ted).
                                               V.
               In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in deny-
        ing Scott’s motion for reasonable litigation costs as a prevailing
        party. See 26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(4)(E)(i).
                AFFIRMED.

        2 The fact that the government lost at trial on eleven of the thirteen tax quar-
        ters is certainly relevant, but Scott cites no authority for her assertion that the
        government is “precluded from asserting it was substantially justified” as to
        those quarters. And Scott fails to engage with any of the magistrate judge’s
        reasons for concluding that the government’s position, notwithstanding the
        jury findings, was substantially justified.