United States v. Elizabeth Gardner
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- The Society of Apostolic Church Ministries Bishop, Elizabeth Gardner Corporation Sole and Her Succes (9th Cir. 2025)
- Society of Apostolic Church Ministries v. United States (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 2024)
- United States v. Buckardt (District Court, W.D. Washington 2020)
- Gardner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (9th Cir. 2017)
- Gardner v. Commissioner (9th Cir. 2017)
- Gardner v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2017)
- Fredric A. Gardner v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2015)
- Gardner v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2015)
- Gunkle v. Commissioner (5th Cir. 2014)
- Bruce Gunkle v. CIR (5th Cir. 2014)
- Cortes v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2014)
- Gardner v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2013)
- Gunkle v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2012)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Elizabeth A. Gardner and Fredric A. Gardner, individually and doing business as Bethel Aram Ministries, appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment enjoining them from promoting, organizing, and selling their corporation sole tax scheme in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6700. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Kapp, 564 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting injunctive relief because the government proved each element for an injunction under 26 U.S.C. § 7408(a). See United States v. Estate Pres. Servs., 202 F.3d 1093, 1098 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth the requirements for injunctive relief under § 7408 for a violation of § 6700). Summary judgment was proper because the Gardners failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to any of the elements. See Kapp, 564 F.3d at 1109 (reviewing de novo the determination that there is no genuine dispute of material fact).
The Gardners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.