United States v. Semenza II
2:22-cv-02059
D. Nev.May 16, 2025Background
- The United States sued Lawrence Semenza II, his wife Romie Semenza, his business entity, and Romie’s son Philippe Schaad (and Schaad’s business) to collect criminal restitution and tax assessments resulting from Lawrence's 2014 guilty plea for failing to file tax returns.
- The government alleges Lawrence Semenza transferred his home to Schaad (Romie's son) to shield it from federal collection efforts, then sued to recover the value of that property for back taxes and restitution.
- The government sought summary judgment to reduce the various tax assessments to judgment and to apply the proceeds from the home's sale toward the debts.
- Schaad paid off the property’s mortgage and obtained title before the IRS recorded any lien; the home was later sold, and the proceeds were placed in court.
- Both the government and Schaad Defendants moved for summary judgment on whether the transfer was fraudulent, whether Schaad was a nominee, and whether a tax lien attached to the sale proceeds.
- The court considered all motions on the evidence and factual disputes over the nature of the home transfer and Schaad's role.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reduce tax assessments to judgment | Assessments presumptively correct, supported by IRS records | IRS evidence invalid, disclosure deficiencies | Granted for government; assessments to be reduced |
| Validity of tax lien against proceeds | Lien attaches to proceeds; Schaad not purchaser for value | Schaad was purchaser for value, paid mortgage, no lien yet | Genuine dispute; denied summary judgment |
| Schaad as nominee for Semenzas | Property held by nominee; Semenzas retained control | Schaad was true owner, provided consideration | Genuine dispute; denied summary judgment |
| Fraudulent conveyance (actual/construct.) | Transfer was to insider to defraud; no equivalent consideration | Transfer bona fide/investment, adequate consideration paid | Genuine dispute; denied summary judgment for both sides |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment—material/genuine fact dispute rules)
- United States v. Fior D’Italia, Inc., 536 U.S. 238 (IRS assessments presumed correct; burden shift)
- Hardy v. Comm’r, 181 F.3d 1002 (burden shifting in tax deficiency context)
- TKB Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 995 F.2d 1460 (tax lien arises at assessment)
- Maisano v. United States, 908 F.2d 408 (requirements for tax lien validity against purchasers)
- Fourth Inv. LP v. United States, 720 F.3d 1058 (nominee analysis—multi-factor, control focus)