Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-mc-00092/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-mc-00092-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Jeffrey G. Sharp, 

Respondent. 

 No. MC 12-0092-PHX-JAT 

ORDER 

 

 

 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce Internal Revenue 

Service (“IRS”) Summons (Doc. 1) and Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate the Show-Cause 

Hearing and for Extension of Time to Serve Respondent (Doc. 8). 

On April 11, 2012, the IRS served Respondent Jeffrey Sharp with an IRS 

Summons at Mr. Sharp’s last and usual place of abode. The Summons directed Mr. Sharp 

to appear before an officer of the IRS on April 27, 2012. Mr. Sharp did not appear at the 

specified time and continues to refuse to comply with the Summons. 

In the motion to enforce IRS Summons, the Petitioner asks the Court to enforce the 

Summons issued to Mr. Sharp and require compliance with the terms of the Summons. 

(Doc. 1 at 3). 

On September 7, 2012, the IRS filed a petition to enforce the Summons on Mr. 

Sharp (Doc. 1) and a motion to set a hearing for Respondent to show cause, if any, why he 

should not comply with and obey the IRS Summons issued to him (Doc. 3). 

Case 2:12-mc-00092-JAT Document 9 Filed 09/09/13 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 - 

On August, 8, 2013, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to set a hearing for 

Respondent to show cause. (Doc. 6). The Court set a show-cause hearing for September 

25, 2013. (Id.). The Court also ordered the Petitioner to serve Mr. Sharp with the order 

within 14 days of the order. (Id.). 

Petitioner has been unable to serve or locate Mr. Sharp. Accordingly, Petitioner 

requests that the Court vacate the scheduled show-cause hearing, schedule a new showcause hearing for early January 2014, and grant Petitioner additional time to locate and 

serve Mr. Sharp (Doc. 8). 

District courts have jurisdiction to order compliance with a summons. 26 U.S.C. 

§§ 7402(b), 7604(a); United States v. Derr, 968 F.2d 943, 945 (9th Cir. 1992). Because 

an IRS summons is not self-enforcing, the United States achieves compliance with a 

summons by seeking judicial enforcement of the summons. See, e.g., Reisman v. Caplin, 

375 U.S. 440, 445-46 (1964); United States v. Gilleran, 992 F.2d 232, 233 (9th Cir. 1993). 

“Summons enforcement proceedings should be summary in nature and discovery should 

be limited.” United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 369 (1989) (citation, quote marks, and 

brackets omitted); see also Derr, 968 F.2d at 945 (“Enforcement of a summons is 

generally a summary proceeding to which a taxpayer has few defenses.”). 

To obtain enforcement of an IRS summons, the United States must show that (1) 

the investigation will be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose; (2) the inquiry may 

be relevant to the purpose; (3) the information sought is not already within the 

Commissioner’s possession; and (4) the administrative steps required by the Internal 

Revenue Code have been followed. United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964). 

Typically, the United States makes this showing by submitting affidavits stating that the 

summons was issued in compliance with the four Powell factors. Ponsford v. United 

States, 771 F.2d 1305, 1308 (9th Cir. 1985). To establish judicial enforcement, the United 

States’ “showing need only be minimal,” and “[a]ssertions by affidavit of the 

investigating agent that the requirements are satisfied are sufficient to make the prima 

facie case.” Liberty Financial Services v. United States, 778 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir. 

Case 2:12-mc-00092-JAT Document 9 Filed 09/09/13 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 - 

1985); see also United States v. Dynavac, Inc., 6 F.3d 1407, 1414 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The 

government’s burden is a slight one, and may be satisfied by a declaration from the 

investigating agent that the Powell requirements have been met.”). In this case, the Court 

finds the United States has met its burden under Powell. 

Once the United States has established the Powell requirements, “those opposing 

enforcement of a summons . . . bear the burden to disprove the actual existence of a valid 

civil tax determination or collection purpose by the [IRS]. . . . Without doubt, this burden 

is a heavy one.” United States v. LaSalle Nat’l Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 316 (1978); see also 

Lidas, Inc. v. United States, 238 F.3d 1076, 1082 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he taxpayer bears a 

heavy burden to rebut the presumption of good faith. . .”) (citation and quote marks 

omitted); United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (taxpayer’s 

burden in opposing enforcement of IRS summons requires production of specific facts and 

evidence). In this case, Respondent has made no attempt to oppose enforcement of the 

Summons. 

Therefore, based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Enforce IRS Summons (Doc. 

1) is granted. Respondent shall comply with the terms of the Summons. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Vacate the ShowCause Hearing and for Extension of Time to Serve Respondent (Doc. 8) is denied without 

prejudice. Specifically, the show-cause hearing scheduled for September 25, 2013 shall 

be vacated. 

Dated this 9th day of September, 2013. 

Case 2:12-mc-00092-JAT Document 9 Filed 09/09/13 Page 3 of 3