Unpublished Disposition, 920 F.2d 936 (9th Cir. 1980)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Steve and Shirley Bebich appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States resulting in the foreclosure of federal income tax liens against their real and personal property. We review the district court's findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo, see Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 898 F.2d 1393, 1395 (CA9 1990), and we affirm.

Assessments made by the IRS are presumptively correct and the taxpayer bears the burden of overcoming this presumption. Roat v. Commissioner, 847 F.2d 1379, 1383 (CA9 1988). Here, the taxpayers had already--and unsuccessfully--litigated both the 1979 and 1980 tax year liabilities as well as the 1983 frivolous return penalty. With respect to the 1981 and 1982 tax year liabilities and the 1984 frivolous return penalty, the record amply supports both the IRS assessments and the government's motion for summary judgment based thereon. The taxpayers having failed to carry their burden under FRCivP 56(e), there was no genuine issue of material fact before the court on these questions. See British Motor Car Distribs., Ltd. v. San Francisco Automotive Indus. Welfare Fund, 882 F.2d 371, 374 (CA9 1989).

The Bebiches' failure to pay their taxes when due (i.e., by April 15, 1980 for the 1979 tax year) gave rise to a lien in favor of the United States on their real and personal property. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321, 6322; Abex Corp. v. Ski's Enters., Inc., 748 F.2d 513, 516 (CA9 1984). The record clearly reflects that Steven Bebich's purported conveyance of his real and personal property to his wife nearly seven months later was without fair consideration and a fraud on the United States. See Mont.Code Ann. Sec. 31-2-314; cf. O'Connor v. Lewis, 776 P.2d 1228, 1233 (Mont.1989). Accordingly, the district court did not err in upholding the assessments and foreclosing the tax liens.

Finally, although the United States has not requested sanctions, this is obviously a frivolous appeal from yet another frivolous tax protester action. Accordingly, we sua sponte impose as a sanction against the appellants double costs of this action. Cf. In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 548 (CA9 1989) (sua sponte imposition of $2,500.00 damages as sanction for filing frivolous petition for rehearing in tax appeal). In all other respects, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.