Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-mc-08002/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-mc-08002-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7402 IRS: Petition to Enforce IRS Summons

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Gary S. Christensen, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. MC 12-08002-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner's petition to enforce Internal Revenue Service

summons (doc. 1), respondent's response (doc. 13), and petitioner's reply (doc. 15). A show

cause hearing was held July 27, 2012. Respondent contends that a summons cannot properly

be issued for a criminal investigation and that the demand for documents violates his Fifth

Amendment right against self-incrimination. 

The government establishes a prima facie case that it acted in good faith in issuing a

summons when it shows the summons: (1) was issued for a legitimate purpose; (2) seeks

information relevant to that purpose; (3) seeks information that is not already in the

possession of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"); and (4) the required administrative steps

have been followed. United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964). In 1978, the

Supreme Court held that once the government establishs the Powell requirements, the party

opposing the summons bears a heavy burden "to disprove the actual existence of a valid civil

tax determination or collection purpose by the Service." United States v. LaSalle Nat'l Bank,

Case 3:12-mc-08002-FJM Document 17 Filed 07/31/12 Page 1 of 4
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 -

437 U.S. 298, 316, 98 S. Ct. 2357, 2367 (1978). Four years later, the statute authorizing the

IRS to issue a summons was amended. The IRS may now issue a summons to investigate

"any offense connected with the administration or enforcement of the internal revenue laws."

26 U.S.C. § 7602(b). Pursuant to this statute, the IRS can issue a summons for the sole

purpose of a criminal investigation. United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1281 n.4

(9th Cir. 1990) (overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325 (9th Cir.

1997)); Scotty's Contracting & Stone, Inc. v. United States, 326 F.3d 785, 788 (6th Cir. 2003)

(joining the Second, Third, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits in finding summonses

issued for criminal investigation were valid). The authority to issue a summons terminates

"if a Justice Department referral is in effect," which occurs when the Secretary of the

Treasury recommends a grand jury investigation or criminal prosecution to the Attorney

General or the Attorney General requests returns from the IRS. 26 U.S.C. § 7602(d)(2)(A).

The United States met its prima facie case, and therefore respondent had the "heavy"

burden to show, by specific facts and evidence, "that the IRS was proceeding in bad faith

with the improper purpose of gathering information for criminal prosecution." Jose, 131 F.3d

at 1328. Respondent did not meet this burden.

IRS Special Agent Thomas Klepper submitted a declaration with the petition stating

that no Justice Department referral is in effect within the meaning of § 7602(d) with respect

to respondent (doc. 2 ¶ 22). Upon examination at the hearing, he confirmed that no referral

has been made. He has spoken about the case with his supervisors, but has not personally

decided whether the case should be referred. Agent Klepper has not yet written his Special

Agent Report, which he testified would be the first step in a long process of making a

referral. His testimony did not show that he is merely gathering evidence after having

decided to make a recommendation for prosecution. See Crystal v. United States, 172 F.3d

1141, 1144 (9th Cir. 1999) (gathering evidence after referral decision would be in bad faith).

Nor is there an institutional posture to make a recommendation for prosecution. There is no

evidence of bad faith or referral to the Department of Justice. Therefore, the summons

should be enforced.

Case 3:12-mc-08002-FJM Document 17 Filed 07/31/12 Page 2 of 4
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 -

Respondent claims the act of producing documents will violate his Fifth Amendment

privilege against self-incrimination. "According to this [act of production] doctrine, the

Self–Incrimination Clause may apply if the act of producing a document communicates

potentially incriminating information independent of the contents of the document." United

States v. O'Shea, 662 F. Supp. 2d 535, 544 (S.D. W. Va. 2009) (emphasis in original).

However, when a summons seeks records of an entity, the agent who holds the records

cannot claim a Fifth Amendment privilege. "[T]he custodian of corporate or entity records

holds those documents in a representative rather than a personal capacity." Braswell v.

United States, 487 U.S. 99, 109-10, 108 S. Ct. 2284, 2291 (1988). "The collective entity rule

provides that an individual is not permitted to invoke a Fifth Amendment privilege with

respect to records of a collective entity, such as a corporation." In re Grand Jury Subpoena,

Dated April 18, 2003, 383 F.3d 905, 909 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004). This is true "even if the records

or the act of producing them might incriminate him personally." United States v. Blackman,

72 F.3d 1418, 1427 (9th Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original). The taxpayer bears the burden

of showing that documents are privileged. United States v. Bright, 596 F.3d 683, 691 (9th

Cir. 2010). 

Respondent has not met this burden with regard to documents from his various entities. The

Fifth Amendment privilege does not bar respondent from having to produce documents from

the entities described in the summons.

The government recognizes that respondent may be able to assert a Fifth Amendment

privilege as to certain personal documents and records. The proper procedure for asserting

this privilege is to appear at the time and place designated and raise the privilege in response

to specific questions or requests for production. At that time, respondent may then file a

motion with the court and a privilege log for in camera review. 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING petitioner's petition to enforce Internal Revenue

Service summons (doc. 1). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 10 days of the entry of this order the

parties confer and schedule a mutually agreeable time and location for respondent to appear,

Case 3:12-mc-08002-FJM Document 17 Filed 07/31/12 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

testify, and produce documents required by the summons before Agent Klepper or any other

proper employee of the IRS no later than 30 days from the date of this order.

DATED this 30th day of July, 2012.

Case 3:12-mc-08002-FJM Document 17 Filed 07/31/12 Page 4 of 4