United States District Court, D. Minnesota
LaQuita Taylor-Phillips, Esq., and Michael R. Pahl, Esq.,
United States Department of Justice, Tax Division, counsel
B. Robbin, pro se, and Lynette R. Robbin, pro se, Defendants.
Sherwood McKinnis, Esq., and Jacob G. Peterson, Esq., counsel
for Defendant North American State Bank.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DONOVAN W.FRANK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendants Ronny and Lynette
Robbin’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (Doc.
No. 69). For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies
the Robbins’ motion.
Court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts
of this case, which are set forth more fully in the
Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. No. 65). In
short, the Government assessed Defendant Ronny Robbin for
unpaid taxes for 2003 and 2005 and penalties for filing
frivolous returns in 2004 and 2005. The dispute between the
Government and Mr. Robbin is not about an unwarranted
deduction or arithmetic error. Instead, Mr. Robbin has taken
the faulty position that his income is not taxable because it
was not corporate profit. The Government filed suit seeking
to recover $213,862.79 in unpaid taxes, penalties, fees, and
interest. To satisfy the assessment, the Government
sought an order compelling the sale of the Robbins’
home (the “Belgrade Property”). On August 9,
2016, the Court granted the Government’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 65) and ordered the sale of the
Belgrade Property (Doc. No. 66). The Robbins have now filed a
motion to alter or amend the judgment. (Doc. No. 69.)
Motion to Amend the Judgment
59(e) motions serve a limited function of correcting
‘manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.’ Such motions cannot be used to
introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise
arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to
entry of judgment.” United States v. Metro. St.
Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotations omitted); see also Innovative Home
Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black
Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998). Relief under
Rule 59(e) is granted in only “extraordinary”
circumstances. See United States v. Young, 806 F.2d
805, 806 (8th Cir. 1986).
The Robbins’ Motions
Robbins contend that the Court made three errors: (1)
rejecting the Robbins’ argument that the notices of
deficiency were not sent; (2) considering Exhibits 11 through
16 attached to Deborah Olson’s Supplemental Declaration
(Doc. No. 55); and (3) rejecting the Robbins’ argument
that the proper person had not signed the notices of
deficiency or penalty assessments.
Notices of ...