Opinion
Case No. 1:02 CV 1334
November 4, 2002
Memorandum of Opinion and Order
This matter is before the Court upon defendant's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 5). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
Facts
Plaintiff Lawrence F. Moore, filed this Complaint against defendant, United States Government, Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (collectively hereafter, defendant), in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. The matter was thereafter removed to this Court inasmuch as the United States or one of its agencies had been sued. 28 U.S.C. § 1442.
Plaintiffs Complaint alleges that it is a civil action to recover an overpayment of income taxes for the years 1997 to 1999. Plaintiff contends that he previously filed a verified claim for a refund in the amount of $11,462.00. Plaintiff alleges that defendant has unlawfully detained the money interfering with his Constitutional right to the possessor' interest of his property. Plaintiff attaches Amended U.S. Individual income Tax Returns for the years 1998 and 1999. (compl. and Addendum A).
This matter is now before the Court upon defendant's Motion to Dismiss or in the
Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment.
Discussion
Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) with respect to the claims for income tax refunds for the taxable years 1998 and 1999. Alternatively, defendant seeks summary judgment with respect to the claims for taxable years 1997 and 1998.
(1) Failure to State a Claim
Defendant asserts that the Complaint fails to state a claim with regard to the claims for income tax refunds for the taxable years 1998 and 1999.
Standard of Review
When considering a motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the allegations of the complaint must be taken as true and construed liberally in favor of plaintiff Lawrence v. Chancery Court of Tenn., 188 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 1999). The complaint is only to be dismissed if the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in supped of his claim which would entitle him to relief Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), Hammond v. Baldwin, 866 F.2d 172 (6th Cir. 1989). However, the complaint must set forth more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions. In Re DeLorean Motor Co., 991 F.2d 1236, 1240 (6th Cir. 1993); Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1988).
While a court may generally not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint may be considered. Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542 (9th Cir. 1990), Charal v. Royal Appliance Mfg. Co., No. 94-3284, 1995 WL 490131 (6th Cir. August 15, 1995) (materials integral to the complaint were considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion without converting the motion into one for summary judgment). Additionally, "documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss." Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. 1994).
Analysis
Plaintiff submits his amended tax returns for the years 1998 and 1999. Plaintiffs 1998 amended return states that his adjusted gross income is zero. Plaintiff provides the explanation, "I incur nor have incurred no tax liability." Plaintiffs amended return further states that he is owed a refund of $4,776.00. Plaintiffs 1999 amended return states that his adjusted gross income is zero. Plaintiff again states, "I incur nor have incurred no tax liability." Plaintiffs amended return further states that he is owed a refund of $2,071.00. (Compl. Addendum A).
This Court agrees with defendant that plaintiff is essentially arguing that wages are not income and that the United States is interfering with his Constitutional and property rights. These arguments have been rejected by the Sixth Circuit and other courts. Himes v. United States, No. 85-5632, 1986 WL 17539 (6th Cir. August 14, 1986) (and cases cited therein).
Therefore, plaintiff fails to state a claim with regard to his Complaint relevant to the taxable years 1998 and 1999.
(2) Summary Judgment
Defendant argues that plaintiffs claims for taxable years 1997 and 1998 are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Standard of Review
Summary Judgment is appropriate when no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)); see also LaFointe v. UAW, Local 600, 8 F.3d 376, 378 (6th Cir. 1993). The burden of showing the absence of any such genuine issues of material facts rests with the moving party:
[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits," if any, which it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). A fact is "material only if its resolution will affect the outcome of the lawsuit." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
Once the moving party has satisfied its burden of proof, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) provides:
When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings, but [his response], by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is genuine issue for trial. If he does not respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.
The court must afford all reasonable inferences and construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cox v. Kentucky Dep't. of Transp., 53 F.3d 146, 150 (6th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Hodges X-Ray, Inc., 759 F.2d 557, 562 (6th Cir. 1985). However, the nonmoving party may not simply rely on its pleading, but must produce evidence that results in a conflict of material fact to be solved by a jury." Cox, 53 F.3d at 150.
Summary judgment should be granted if a party who bears the burden of proof at trial does not establish an essential element of his case. Tolton v. American Biodyne, Inc., 48 F.3d 937, 941 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322). Accordingly, "the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of plaintiffs position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff" Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 479 (6th Cir. 1995) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 52 (1986)). Moreover, if the evidence is "merely colorable" and not "significantly probative," the court may decide the legal issue and grant summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (citation omitted).
Analysis
Plaintiff previously filed an action seeking federal income tax refunds for the taxable years 1992 through 1998. Moore v. United States Government, No. 1:00 CV 1260 (N.D. Ohio, July 27, 2000) United States District Judge Solomon Oliver issued an Order dismissing plaintiffs complaint in its entirety finding, inter alia, no merit to plaintiffs claim that wages are not income and, therefore, non-taxable. (Doc. 5 Ex. A).
The Ohio courts have set forth the elements of the doctrine of res judicata:
In order for res judicata to bar a second suit, the following elements must be present: (a) an existing final judgment; (b) rendered on the merits without fraud or collusion; (c) by a court of competent jurisdiction; (d) is conclusive of all rights, questions, and facts in issue; (e) as to the parties and their privies; and (f) in all other actions in the same or any other judicial tribunal or concurrent jurisdiction.Corradi v. Bear Creek Investments, No. 72915, 1998 WL 241927, *4 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 1998), (citing Ohio Dept of Human Serv. v. Kozar, 99 Ohio App.3d 713, 716, 651 N.E.2d 1039 (1995)). Clearly, all of the elements have been met as there has been a final judgment on the merits between these same parties by a court of competent jurisdiction. Plaintiff argues that no final judgment was made in Case No. 1:00 CV 1260 because the case was dismissed. This Court disagrees given that Judge Oliver determined that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim and dismissed the action, issuing a final Order.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.