Case ID: f-appx_703/html/0536-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MAXCREST LIMITED, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-16587
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2017  San Francisco, California
    Filed November 20, 2017
    George Dominic Niespolo, Attorney, Duane Morris LLP, San Francisco, CA, Thomas W. Ostrander, Esquire, Duane Morris, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner-Appellant
    Michael J. Haungs, Deborah Krauss Snyder, Esquire, Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and FRIEDMAN, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Paul L. Friedman, United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maxcrest Ltd. alleges that the government issued and reissued a summons in bad faith, because only on reissue was it given notice and opportunity to complain that the summons was issued in bad faith. Bad faith exists where a summons is issued without a legitimate or proper purpose, to abuse a court’s process, to harass a taxpayer, to improperly use the requested information, or otherwise to go fishing. United States v. Clarke, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 2361, 2367, 189 L.Ed.2d 330 (2014); United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58, 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964); United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1997); Liberty Fin. Servs. v. United States, 778 F.2d 1390, 1392-93 (9th Cir. 1985). The government reissued the summons so that Maxcrest could have its opportunity to complain. Finally armed with that opportunity, Maxcrest now fails to allege even a single improper purpose behind either summons. The district court’s order is thus

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.