The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION [Doc. No. 47, 48, 49]
Presently before the Court is the Government's Motion for Summary Adjudication. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Government's motion.
This matter involves the assessment of civil penalties against Ronald C. Savona and Keith M. Christian pursuant to 26 U.S. C. § 6672.
Christian and Savona served in various executive capacities for Eco Building Systems Inc. ("Eco") during 2001 and 2002. On October 13, 2005, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") made an assessment of liability arising under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 against Savona, alleging a willful failure to collect, truthfully account for, and pay over the withheld income taxes of Eco employees for tax periods in 2001 and 2002. On March 29, 2004, the I.R.S. made an identical assessment against Christian.
On July 5, 2006, Savona filed his complaint, asserting the IRS's assessment of tax liability against him was improper since, under section 6672, he was not a "responsible person,"-i.e., a person responsible for the payment of withheld taxes-nor had he acted willfully with respect to any failure of Eco to satisfy its tax liability. (Doc. No. 1.) Savona seeks a refund of amounts paid and a full abatement of the assessment against him. On September 6, 2006, the Government filed an answer in which it denies Savona's allegation that the assessments are improper. (Doc. No. 4.) In addition, the Government asserts counterclaims against both Savona and Christian for the balance of the tax assessments that remain unpaid. (Id.) On October 30, 2006, Savona and Christian answered, denying the validity of the assessments and liability under 26 U.S.C. 6672. (Doc. No. 7; Doc. No. 12) On June 29, 2007, the Government filed a motion for summary judgment on its counterclaims against Savona and Christian. In an Order dated October 15, 2007, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Government as to Christian, finding that he was a "responsible person" with respect to unpaid tax liabilities and that he acted willfully in failing to pay withheld taxes. The Court, however, denied the Government's motion for summary judgment with respect to Savona, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed as to both the responsibility and willfulness prongs.
On February 15, 2008, the Government filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication, asking the Court to make a finding that, if it is determined at trial that Savona was a responsible person, the United States is entitled to judgment against Savona because he has no defense to the willfulness prong of 26 U.S.C. § 6672. (Doc. No. 47.) On March 15, 2008, Savona filed an opposition. (Doc. No. 48.) On April 1, 2008, the Government filed a reply. (Doc. No. 49.) The Court finds the matter fully briefed and amenable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).
As explained in the Court's prior order, willfulness, under § 6672, has long been defined as "a voluntary, conscious and intentional act to prefer other creditors over the United States." Purcell v. United States, 1 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Davis v. United States, 961 F.2d 867, 871 (9th Cir. 1992)). Willfulness does not require the intent to defraud the government or any other bad motive. Davis, 961 F.2d at 871. Rather, any deliberate decision to use corporate funds after receiving knowledge of a payroll tax deficiency "falls within the literal terms of this Circuit's definition of willfulness." Id.
The Government argues willfulness has been established because there is no dispute that Savona learned of Eco's outstanding federal payroll taxes through his position as a company executive and member of the company's board but then failed to use his authority to sign checks to settle the liability before any creditors were paid. This failure, argues the Government, constitutes a voluntary, conscious, and intentional act to prefer other creditors to the Government under the case law of the Ninth Circuit.
In his opposition, Savona argues the Government has failed to submit evidence indicating how he specifically preferred ...