Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-mc-00119/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-mc-00119-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald P. Cavage, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Lasaros Papanastassion, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. MC-06-0119-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner Ronald Cavage’s petition to quash IRS summonses (doc.

1), respondent Aegis Mortgage Corporation’s motion to dismiss (doc. 2), and respondent United

States’ motion to dismiss (doc. 3). Petitioner has not responded to either motion to dismiss, and the

time to do so has long since passed. 

During the course of an IRS investigation into petitioner’s federal income tax liability for

the years 2000 through 2004, the IRS issued three summonses to Aegis Mortgage Corporation, Bank

of America, and JP Morgan Chase Bank, requiring them to produce for examination records

pertaining to petitioner. Petitioner then filed a petition to quash the summonses. 

Congress has empowered the IRS to issue third-party summonses for taxpayer records

pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7609. The taxpayer may file a “proceeding to quash” the summons within

twenty days from the date of notice of the summons. Id. at § 7609(b)(2)(A). The twenty-day filing

requirement is "a condition precedent to the waiver of sovereign immunity," which “must be strictly

Case 2:06-mc-00119-FJM Document 6 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

construed.” Ponsford v. United States, 771 F.2d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1985). “[A] district court does

not have jurisdiction under § 7609(h)(1) where the plaintiff has failed to comply with the twenty-day

filing requirement of § 7609(b)(2)(A)." Id.

According to the declaration of IRS Agent Papanastassiou, as well as certified mail receipts,

copies of the Bank of America and JP Morgan summonses were mailed to petitioner on September

19, 2006. The notice of the Aegis Mortgage summons was mailed to petitioner on September 28,

2006. Therefore, pursuant to § 7609(b)(2)(A), petitioner had until October 9, 2006, to challenge the

Bank of America and JP Morgan summonses, and until October 18, 2006, to challenge the Aegis

summons. He did not file his petition to quash, however, until October 19, 2006, outside the twentyday deadline. We therefore lack jurisdiction over this action, and accordingly grant the United

States’ motion to dismiss on this basis. 

Even if we had jurisdiction to consider the petition to quash, we would nevertheless reach

the same conclusion. To defeat a petition to quash, or alternatively to enforce a summons, the

government must establish a prima facie case of good faith by showing (1) that the investigation is

conducted for a legitimate purpose; (2) that the material sought is relevant to that purpose; (3) that

the IRS is not already in possession of the material sought; and (4) and that the IRS has complied

with the applicable administrative requirements. Crystal v. United States, 172 F.3d 1141, 1143-44

(9th Cir. 1999) (citing United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58, 85 S. Ct. 248, 255 (1964)). The

government’s burden to establish a prima facie case of good faith is a “slight one” that is typically

made through the introduction of the sworn declaration of the revenue agent who issued the

summons. Fortney v. United States, 59 F.3d 117, 120 (9th Cir. 1995). Once a prima facie case is

made, a “heavy burden” is placed on the taxpayer to show an abuse of process or lack of institutional

good faith. Id.

Here, Revenue Agent Papanastassiou’s declaration establishes that the summonses at issue

meet the elements set forth in Powell. See Papanastassiou Declaration (doc. 5). Petitioner did not

respond to the government’s motion to dismiss, but only presented specious arguments in his

petition to quash. Petitioner has failed to establish that the summonses were issued in bad faith.

Case 2:06-mc-00119-FJM Document 6 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the United States' motion to dismiss the petition

to quash (doc. 3). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Aegis Mortgage’s motion to dismiss as moot

(doc. 2). 

DATED this 6th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:06-mc-00119-FJM Document 6 Filed 02/06/07 Page 3 of 3