Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04193/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04193-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 871
Nature of Suit: IRS 3rd Party Suits 26 USC 7609 (U.S. plaintiff)
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Unit.eel States Court of Appeals 

'fenth Circuit 

OCT 2 31991 

MAHONRI FABER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; MARY ANNE 

THORUM, Revenue Officer; INTERNAL 

REVENUE SERVICE; ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL 

BANK, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-4193 

(D,C. No. 90-C-640-W) 

(D. Utah) 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, and EBEL, Circuit Judge, and SAFFELS,** 

District Judge. 

**Honorable Dale E. Saffels, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-4193 Document: 010110092126 Date Filed: 10/23/1991 Page: 1 
.. 

This appeal is from a district court order enforcing a 

third-party summons issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7602 (1989), during the course of an 

investigation of the tax liability of petitioner, Mahonri Faber, 

for the taxable years 1984 through 1989. The summons required 

petitioner's bank to produce certain financial records and 

documents pertaining to Mahonri Faber, Carolee B. Faber, and Faber 

Construction Co. 

Petitioner filed his petition to quash the summons and 

requested an injunction to prevent release of the documents by the 

bank. The magistrate judge recommended denial of the injunction. 

A hearing was set on the government's motion to enforce the 

summons. Petitioner did not appear for the hearing. The 

magistrate judge recommended that the summons be enforced. The 

district court affirmed and ordered petitioner's bank to produce 

the summoned information. Petitioner then filed his notice of 

appeal but did not request a stay of the district court's order 

enforcing the IRS summons. 

In its motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, the government 

advises that the documents sought in the summons have been 

provided to the IRS and that petitioner's bank has complied fully 

with the district court's enforcement order. 

We agree with the United States that the appeal in this case 

is moot. "Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts 

may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies .... 

This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages 

of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate." Lewis v. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-4193 Document: 010110092126 Date Filed: 10/23/1991 Page: 2 
Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, , 110 S. Ct. 1249, 1253 

(1990). A personal stake in the result of the lawsuit must be 

maintained by each of the parties. 110 S. Ct. at 1254. In this 

proceeding to obtain information, the bank's compliance with the 

district court's enforcement order extinguished whatever case or 

controversy existed between petitioner and the IRS. United States 

v. Trails End Motel, Inc., 657 F.2d 1169, 1170 (10th Cir. 

198l)(per curiam). 

Petitioner "may adequately protect [his] asserted interest by 

challenging the IRS procedure if and when the government attempts 

to make further use of the information obtained by the summons[]." 

Id. Petitioner's remedy is to file a timely suppression motion at 

such time as the United States seeks to use the information 

obtained by means of the summons. 

World Peace, 878 F.2d 1281, 

United 

1284 (10th 

States v. Church of 

Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 531 

Cir. 1989); see also 

(197l)(if taxpayer 

has "a protectable interest, as, for example, by way of privilege, 

or to the extent he may claim abuse of process, [he] may always 

assert that interest or that claim in due course ... in any 

subsequent trial"). 

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED as moot. 

The cause is REMANDED to the district court with instructions to 

dismiss the petition. Great W. Sugar Co. v. Nelson, 442 U.S. 92, 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-4193 Document: 010110092126 Date Filed: 10/23/1991 Page: 3 
93-94 (1979)(per curiam); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 

U.S. 36, 39 (1950). 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-4193 Document: 010110092126 Date Filed: 10/23/1991 Page: 4