America v. Boedigheimer

Background

The United States government brought this civil action against Robert and Wendi Boedigheimer and several other defendants (including lienholders Emigrant Mortgage, F&M Savings Bank, and Washington County, Minnesota) to collect unpaid federal income taxes. The government alleged that the Boedigheimers filed joint federal income tax returns for tax years 2013, 2014, 2017, and 2018, reported taxes owed on those returns, but failed to fully pay the amounts due.

According to the Amended Complaint, the IRS issued assessments and demands for payment, the Boedigheimers entered into an installment agreement with the IRS, and then defaulted on that agreement before January 29, 2024. The IRS subsequently sent the Boedigheimers a CP523 letter — a notice expressing the IRS's intent to terminate the installment agreement — by certified mail on February 14, 2024, dated February 19, 2024. The installment agreement was formally terminated on April 24, 2024.

The government's lawsuit seeks four forms of relief: (1) reducing the unpaid tax assessments to a court judgment; (2) enforcing federal tax liens on the Boedigheimers' real property at 841 Oakgreen Avenue in Stillwater, Minnesota; (3) obtaining a court order authorizing the sale of that property; and (4) having the court determine how sale proceeds are distributed among competing claimants.

Procedural History

The government filed its initial complaint in March 2025. The Boedigheimers, who are self-represented (meaning they are litigating without a lawyer), filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows a defendant to seek dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The government then moved to amend its complaint, which the Boedigheimers opposed. The court granted the motion to amend in part and required the government to respond to the pending motion to dismiss. The government filed the Amended Complaint on July 28, 2025, and the parties then submitted briefs on whether the Amended Complaint could survive the motion to dismiss.

Legal Standard

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a court accepts the facts alleged in the complaint as true and views them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. However, purely conclusory statements or legal conclusions dressed up as factual allegations need not be accepted. To survive dismissal, a complaint must contain enough facts to make a claim for relief "plausible on its face" — a standard drawn from the Supreme Court decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). The complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, but it must raise the right to relief above a merely speculative level.

Analysis

Notice of Intent to Terminate the Installment Agreement

The Boedigheimers' primary argument was that the complaint lacked allegations establishing that the government provided them with the required notice of its intent to terminate the installment agreement before doing so. The court acknowledged that the original complaint was silent on this point. However, the Amended Complaint specifically alleged that the IRS sent the Boedigheimers a CP523 letter by certified mail on February 14, 2024, expressing the IRS's intent to terminate the agreement. The court found this allegation sufficient, concluding that the specific reference to the CP523 letter — including the delivery method of certified mail — adequately alleged notice and stated a plausible claim for relief under the Twombly standard.

Alternative Argument: Exhaustion of Due Process Rights

In their reply brief, the Boedigheimers raised a new argument: that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed because it did not allege that they had exhausted or waived their due process rights to challenge the termination. The court rejected this argument, noting that the Boedigheimers cited no binding legal authority supporting the proposition that a complaint must include factual allegations preemptively addressing every potential defense a defendant might raise regarding the validity of the notice. The court also noted the Boedigheimers cited no authority setting out substantive or procedural requirements for such notices, and in light of contrary authorities cited by the government, denied the motion on this alternative ground as well.

Request to Convert to Summary Judgment

In a footnote, the court also addressed the Boedigheimers' alternative request to have the court consider additional evidence outside the complaint and treat the motion as one for summary judgment (a different procedural standard requiring both sides to present evidence). The court declined, finding that genuine disputes of material fact — meaning real disagreements about the underlying facts — would prevent the court from entering judgment in the Boedigheimers' favor at this early stage of the case.

Ruling

Judge Bryan denied the Boedigheimers' Motion to Dismiss. The case will proceed.