Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-05007-WHA

Document 17

Filed 02/14/2008

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10640 Mather Blvd., Suite 200, Mather, California 95655 Phone: (916) 920-5286 Fax: (916) 920-8608

CARL P. BLAINE (State Bar # 65229) Email: [email protected] MINNA C. YANG (State Bar # 187599)* *[Admission pending] Email: [email protected] JASON P. FRICANO (State Bar #246697)* *[Admission pending] WAGNER KIRKMAN BLAINE KLOMPARENS & YOUMANS LLP 10640 Mather Blvd., Suite 200 Mather, California 95655 Telephone: (916) 920-5286 Facsimile: (916) 920-8608 Attorneys for DANA K. OLSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DANA K. OLSON, et al, Defendants. Case No. C-07-5007-WHA DEFENDANT DANA K. OLSON'S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1.

Defendant DANA K. OLSON (hereinafter "Defendant"), hereby responds to Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendant reserves the right to amend, add or strike affirmative defenses as

discovery ensues or due to any inadvertence. Defendant further reserves the right to raise affirmative defenses and admit such as a defense at trial which is subsequently discovered through the discovery process. COUNT I JURISDICTION AND VENUE Answering the allegations of Paragraph 1, Defendant admits the allegations of

said paragraph. 2. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 2, Defendant admits that this action is

{12946.00000 / 00347570.DOC.2} 1 Olson's Answer to the United States of America Complaint

Case 3:07-cv-05007-WHA

Document 17

Filed 02/14/2008

Page 2 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10640 Mather Blvd., Suite 200, Mather, California 95655 Phone: (916) 920-5286 Fax: (916) 920-8608

purportedly commenced pursuant to Sections 7401 and 7403 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint for lack of sufficient information. Specifically, Defendant denies for lack of information that this action was commenced with the authorization and sanction, and at the request of, the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate. 3. information. 4. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 4, Defendant denies, except admits that Answering the allegations of Paragraph 3, Defendant denies for lack of sufficient

the subject property is located within this judicial district. COUNT II IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANTS 5. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 5, Defendant denies, except admits that

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 / / /

the subject property is within the jurisdiction of this Court. 6. information. 7. information. 8. information. 9. information. 10. information. 11. information. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE FORECLOSED 12. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 12, Defendant admits. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 11, Defendant denies for lack of sufficient Answering the allegations of Paragraph 10, Defendant denies for lack of sufficient Answering the allegations of Paragraph 9, Defendant denies for lack of sufficient Answering the allegations of Paragraph 8, Defendant denies for lack of sufficient Answering the allegations of Paragraph 7, Defendant denies for lack of sufficient Answering the allegations of Paragraph 6, Defendant denies for lack of sufficient

{12946.00000 / 00347570.DOC.2} 2 Olson's Answer to the United States of America Complaint

Case 3:07-cv-05007-WHA

Document 17

Filed 02/14/2008

Page 3 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10640 Mather Blvd., Suite 200, Mather, California 95655 Phone: (916) 920-5286 Fax: (916) 920-8608

COUNT III REDUCE ASSESSMENTS TO JUDGMENT 13. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 13, Defendant incorporates herein by

reference her responses to paragraphs 1 through 12. 14. information. 15. information. COUNT IV FORECLOSE FEDERAL TAX LIENS 16. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 16, Defendant incorporates herein by Answering the allegations of Paragraph 15, Defendant denies for lack of sufficient Answering the allegations of Paragraph 14, Defendant denies for lack of sufficient

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

reference her responses to Paragraphs 1 through 15. 17. information. 18. information. 19. information. 20. Defendant further denies generally each and every allegation of the Complaint not Answering the allegations of Paragraph 19, Defendant denies for lack of sufficient Answering the allegations of Paragraph 18, Defendant denies for lack of sufficient Answering the allegations of Paragraph 17, Defendant denies for lack of sufficient

herein specifically admitted, qualified or denied.

PRAYER Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever, including all those indicated in Plaintiff's Prayer for award and relief in Plaintiff's Complaint. / / / / / / / / / / / /
{12946.00000 / 00347570.DOC.2} 3 Olson's Answer to the United States of America Complaint

Case 3:07-cv-05007-WHA

Document 17

Filed 02/14/2008

Page 4 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10640 Mather Blvd., Suite 200, Mather, California 95655 Phone: (916) 920-5286 Fax: (916) 920-8608

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Improper Venue) 1. AS AND FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, Defendant alleges that this district is not the proper venue in which to reduce the federal tax assessments to judgment because Defendant does not reside in this judicial district and because Defendant did not reside in this judicial district at the time this action was commenced. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Claim) 2. AS AND FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DEFENSE, Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each and every cause of action therein fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) 3. AS AND FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's delay in asserting its allegations have resulted in prejudice to Defendant and thus, Plaintiff should be denied relief under the doctrine of laches. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 4. AS AND FOR A FOURTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's assessments of tax herein at issue were barred by the applicable statute of limitations under section 6502(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 5. AS AND FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's authority to collect on the federal tax assessments herein at issue is barred by the applicable statute of limitations for collection under section
{12946.00000 / 00347570.DOC.2} 4 Olson's Answer to the United States of America Complaint

Case 3:07-cv-05007-WHA

Document 17

Filed 02/14/2008

Page 5 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10640 Mather Blvd., Suite 200, Mather, California 95655 Phone: (916) 920-5286 Fax: (916) 920-8608

6501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Jurisdiction) 6. AS AND FOR A SIXTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, Defendant alleges lack of subject matter jurisdiction because this action was not instituted with the authorization and sanction, and at the request of, the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate as required by sections 7401 and 7403(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Jurisdiction) 7. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, Defendant alleges lack of jurisdiction because there is no live case or controversy regarding Plaintiff's demands for foreclosure of tax liens as Defendant has sold or will sell the subject property and will use the proceeds to pay the liabilities due to the Treasury, to the extent they exist. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Collection Due Process Rights) 8. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DEFENSE, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff should be denied relief because Defendant was not afforded her Collection Due Process Rights. Because Defendant was not afforded her

Collection Due Process rights, Plaintiff's Complaint does not balance the need for efficient tax collection with Defendant's concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(3).

WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendant prays for judgment against Plaintiff as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) That the relief sought in the Complaint be denied; For such costs and expenses of suit incurred herein; For reasonable attorneys' fees according to proof; For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

{12946.00000 / 00347570.DOC.2} 5 Olson's Answer to the United States of America Complaint

Case 3:07-cv-05007-WHA

Document 17

Filed 02/14/2008

Page 6 of 6

1 2 3 4 By: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10640 Mather Blvd., Suite 200, Mather, California 95655 Phone: (916) 920-5286 Fax: (916) 920-8608

DATED: February 14, 2008

WAGNER KIRKMAN BLAINE KLOMPARENS & YOUMANS LLP

/s/ Carl P. Blaine CARL P. BLAINE Attorneys for DANA K. OLSON

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
{12946.00000 / 00347570.DOC.2} 6 Olson's Answer to the United States of America Complaint