RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS ANSWER

Dale & Svitlana Ground

7830 E. Redfield Road #5

Scottsdale, AZ 85260

Plaintiffs, pro se

 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

TAX DEPARTMENT

 
SAVANNA’S FLOWERS, LLC,

DALE AND SVITLANA GROUND,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

Defendant,

 Case No: TX2023-000113

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM

 
 

 

Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants SAVANNA’S FLOWERS, LLC and DALE AND SVITLANA GROUND (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) files this Response to Defendant’s Answer and Counterclaim. In response thereof, they state as follows:

  1. The Arizona Department of Revenue committed errors and levies amounting to $12,883.30 without cause, notification or justification. They attempted seizing the Plaintiffs’ bank accounts on 3 separate occasions. They seized $7026.69, $2946.61, and $2910.00 from Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs had to file for relief from the court to rectify the error in judgement from the Arizona Department of Revenue.
  2. The Defendant’s actions of levying the Plaintiffs’ bank account for $20,219.76 on 7-8-2019 was already satisfied before the attempted seizure. Their demand to pay the $20,219.76 was already paid with a total of $24,288.47 paid a full month before the Levy by 6-6-2019.  The amount paid by 6-20-2019 was $26,717.47.  The taxes were already paid with several thousand dollars above the amount requested prior to the levy.  The money seized of $7026.69 without cause has never shown up on Plaintiffs TPT account.
  3. The Arizona Department of Revenue has never explained truthfully where the money has gone and would not send anything in writing regardless of the years the Plaintiffs sent emails and called them for the information. The funds are not showing up on the account anywhere. The Plaintiff has transaction history evidence of every payment, usurious late payment, and excessive fee that has been paid by the Plaintiffs. “Exhibit A”
  4. The Plaintiffs have filed subpoenas to get the information but defendants have not been cooperating. The Defendants have been served with the subpoena to provide such information and they have not attempted to send the documents. “Exhibit B”. Plaintiffs are therefore asking for $7026.69 judgement relief from the court in that regard.
  5. The Arizona Department of Revenue attempted a second levy without notice again on 11-15-2022 for $2946.61. “Exhibit C”. There were a total of eight payments the Department of Revenue seized. After only three of the payments analyzed, it appears the following: The money seized on this date was $2946.61. This figure also includes the $1,651.82 for 2017 taxes which the Plaintiffs owed 0 dollars and 0 cents.
  6. The 2020 taxes of $512.10 are also a false with a copy of the 4868 Extension form along with the electronic filing on 10-15-2021 showing the amount due was paid on 10-15-2021 at 12:56 p.m. There was never a late fee owed. Another phony charge “Exhibit D”
  7. The 2015 TPT Payment dated 7-31-2015 was also not owed. This payment was already paid in full and no amount was due. The TPT Payment was an additional false charge. “Exhibit E” This payment will come up again in FEB 2023 when they deducted it from a check that was sent to us even though it’s already paid 11-15-2022 without cause to seize it in the first place. “Exhibit F”

$1632.88                     2017 Taxes assessed were not owed

“Exhibit D”

$ 512.10                      2020 Taxes assessed were not owed

“Exhibit E”

$ 279.06                      2015 TPT Taxes assessed were not owed.

“Exhibit F”

  1. The funds seized that were not owed is $2424.04 out of $2946.61.  The taxes assessed that were not owed from the second Levy from 11-15-2022. Plaintiffs are seeking additional Judgement of $2424.04 for the additional amount that was never owed.
  2. In the interest of time and not wasting the valuable time of the court, Plaintiffs will concede to 2013 $24.41, 2016 24.96, 2018 $28.82, 2015 309.43, 2019 $138.28, and $522.57, which may or may not have been owed. This shows poor judgement at minimum and double payments attempted to harass and commit fraud at worst. It certainly was not worthy of only 17% of a $2945.61 attachment of a bank account possibly being owed.
  3. The additional Third levy dated 1-12-2023 was $2910.17 seized without cause, without notice, and without reason. Plaintiffs have discovered from talking with the Arizona DOR Agent that it was from either 2017 or 2020 taxes, which we owed no taxes on either year.  The attorney for the defendant attempts to include this levy within the refund of a check. It is a duplicate levy from 1-15-2023, which was also not warranted.  This is also part of the subpoena which the defendants are not providing. We seek Judgement of an additional amount of $2910.17.
  4. Plaintiffs are also seeking a refund of the overpayment paid for 2021 taxes. Plaintiff received a letter from AZ DOR on 12-8-2022, which came up with a $500.00 “Other Penalties” for a penalty for late filing 120s return. This payment was set up for payment on 12-24-2022 to be cashed on 12-29-2022.  Plaintiffs’ CPA did include the late fee in the taxes when filed.  The CPA included an Arizona Late filing Interest and penalty worksheet. The form had $54.00 for Late Payment Interest, Failure to file penalty worksheet $433.00, and Extension Underpayment Penalty $69.00 for a total if $556.00. Plaintiffs paid the $500.00 fee from the letter dated 12-8-2022 as dated.  “Exhibit”
  5. Plaintiffs then received another fraudulent letter dated 1-27-2023 stating that there was a tax amount of $2222.87, which included a late fee of $429.50 plus $75.37 in interest, even though the same $500.00 was paid more than a month prior to this letter. “Exhibit”. Not for paying twice on two letters but paying the first request in December and Filing the actual taxes and paying with the penalty attached. Plaintiff Seeks $500.00 additional Judgement for the double payment.
  6. Plaintiffs have noticed that when one pays the Arizona Department of Revenue, it is common for one to pay off what is owed and the interest keeps accruing.  Especially in the TPT Payment area. This has been a pattern. This is even proven by the two letters received on 12-8-2022 and an additional letter for the same debt on 1-27-2022.  “Exhibit”
  7. Plaintiffs have a balance on the TPT Payment Board of $1026.91, which is owed to the plaintiff. Instead of using it when defendant thinks a payment is due, they just attach bank accounts instead of using the surplus on the account. Plaintiffs seek added judgement for this amount $ 1026.91. Plus 5 years interest.  “Exhibit”
  8. Plaintiffs were notified on 4-12-2023 that the Arizona Department of Revenue has placed a Motor Vehicle stop lien on the vehicles. After conversations with the AZ DOR, Plaintiffs were told by one of the AZ DOR agents that they were removing the hold on the vehicles. Plaintiffs were aware based on prior actions they would hope but not put ourselves at risk until there was proof of the action promised by the AZ DOR. Plaintiffs were forced to continue driving rental cars until there was proof they acted in good faith, which they did not Plaintiffs are requesting Car rental re-imbursement based upon the unwarranted actions of the defendant laid out in the complaint. Judgment for Auto Rentals $ 6643.84, Vehicle receipts as of today 7-23-2023 a total of $6643.84. 
  9. The Plaintiffs received a check from the Defendant for $17,200, which the Defendant indicated as a refund. This payment was in response to the Plaintiff’s timely payment of the 2021 taxes, and there were no outstanding taxes owed. Plaintiffs have attached documents that demonstrate that the check sent to them by the Defendant was for a refund of taxes paid in full, and there were no outstanding taxes owed at the time (see Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint). The Defendant’s attempt to impose penalties and interest on a payment they voluntarily sent to us is unjustifiable. “Exhibit”          
  10. Due to the defendant’s negligence and mishandling of the matter there are nothing additional owed regarding this check. They are not entitled to interest or taxes since no taxes are due.  All taxes were paid regardless of a refund and the letters from defendants actually prove this is true.  As proven in this court the Plaintiff did Immediately contact the Defendant to make sure they put a stop payment on the check if this was not a refund. The Defendants did charge $50.00 for the original bounced check and that is legally what they are entitled to.
  11. Instead of resolving the issue, the Defendant’s attempt to impose penalties and interest along with hiding money from a possible refund if the check did go through even though they were already notified it would not. The Defendants attempted to hide $282.36, which was already paid before 2020 and additionally for the second time on 11-15-2022 through a seizure which was not justified.
  12. The Defendants also attempted to steal an additional $4615.33 from the Plaintiffs if the check did go through. It follows; the total attempted theft if this check went through was $4897.69. . Based upon their history Plaintiffs would have never seen it again.
  13. Plaintiffs chose not to name a person but thought it was necessary to show the appearance of a standing operating procedure that is not just, and lacks integrity. This appears to be standing operating procedure based upon false letters, fake charges, double and triple charges, hiding of documents and evidence, and not notifying a tax payor before a bank seizure and possibly committing crimes such as fraud and theft.
  14. The Defendants charged $50.00 for the original bounced check and that is legally what they are entitled to. It was paid.
  15. The Plaintiffs have issued a subpoena to the Defendant, requesting relevant documents that the Defendant has failed to provide. Non-compliance with the subpoena obstructs the Plaintiff’s ability to present a comprehensive response.
  16. The Department of Revenue continues to obstruct by not showing any payments from TPT history for Plaintiffs Account between 1-1-2017 and 4-29-2019. There are no payment history located in the area titled Payment History in 2017 through the end of 2018 plus the first 3 months of 2019.  This was part of the subpoena.  Defendants were asked to provide information or fix it so we can see the info. They still have not complied.
  17. Plaintiffs still have not received the 3rd Levy Notice dated 1-12-2023.
  18. Plaintiffs still have not received where the money is for the first money stolen from their bank account. (TPT Payments)

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray the Court for the following reliefs:

  1. Compensation and/or refund amounting to: $7026.69, $2946.61, $2910.00, $2424.04, $2910.17, $ 1026.91 (plus 5 years interest).
  2. Plaintiffs are also seeking a refund of the overpayment paid for 2021 taxes
  • Plaintiffs seek $500.00 additional Judgement for the double payment.
  1. Plaintiff prays for Judgment for Auto Rentals $ 6643.84, Vehicle receipts as of today 7-23-2023 a total of $6643.84
  2. Plaintiffs pray for any other order this Court deems just, expedient and fit.

 

DATED: ___________

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

___________________

Dale Ground

 

__________________

Svitlana Ground

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [________], copies of the foregoing document have been sent to the Defendant in the following addresses:

 

Arizona Department of Revenue

1600 W. Monroe St.

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Felissa Bermudez

Kristin K. Mayes

Attorney General

(Firm Bar No. 14000)

Kimberly Cygan (013977)

Lisa Neuville (012285)

Shyla Freestone (026244)

Assistant Attorney General

2005 North Central Avenue

Phoenix, AZ 85004-1592

Telephone:     (602) 542-8385

(602) 542-8444

(602) 542-8371

DATED: ___________

___________________

Dale Ground

 

__________________

Svitlana Ground

 

 

 

 

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )