The moment I’ve been waiting for has arrived.

On January 4, 2021, in response to my Amended Complaint, DoJ Tax Division Trial Attorneys Ryan O. McMonagle and his acolyte, Benton T. Morton, filed their Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accompanying that Motion was a Memorandum of Law in Support of United States’ Motion to Dismiss and a proposed Order of dismissal to be signed by Judge John D. Bates.

I will leave it to each of you to read the McMonagle/Morton “Memorandum of Law….” and form your own opinion as to its truthfulness.

But, the following is a summary of the Argument they put forth on page 4:

McNeil’s action should be dismissed on two grounds. First, the action should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because McNeil does not seek the only relief authorized by 26 U.S.C. § 7345(e): an order that the Service “notify” the Department of State that its certification of McNeil’s “seriously delinquent tax debt” was erroneous. Instead, he requests various injunctive or monetary remedies that are either barred by the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C. § 7421) or are relief for which the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity under the limited waiver of 26 U.S.C. § 7345(e). Second, even if this Court had subject matter jurisdiction, the action should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because McNeil cannot state a claim that the IRS erroneously certified him as a taxpayer with a “seriously delinquent tax debt” under any of the theories he puts forward in the Amended Complaint.

Since DoJ attorney Ryan McMonagle is a serial filer of false and misleading pleadings, as you read the Memorandum and encounter a reference to one of my Exhibits, please refer to my prior blog (Update #5) to compare his interpretation of the language of the Exhibit with the actual language contained therein.

I am currently drafting my “Reply in Opposition….” and will file it later this week.