Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-mc-00092/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-mc-00092-0/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 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 request that the Court enter an order 

setting a hearing for Respondent Jeffrey G. Sharp (“Mr. Sharp”) to show cause, if any, 

why he should not comply with and obey the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Summons 

issued to him (Doc. 3). 

 On April 11, 2012, Jennifer Pardue, an IRS revenue officer issued an IRS 

Summons to Mr. Sharp to testify and to produce for examination books, records, papers, 

and other data as described in the Summons. On April 12, 2012, the Summons was 

served 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. On April 27th, Mr. Sharp did not 

appear and comply with the Summons and his refusal to comply with the Summons 

continues to the present. The testimony and information sought by the Summons are not 

already in the possession of the IRS. The IRS contends that it is necessary to obtain the 

testimony and to examine the information sought by the Summons to collect Mr. Sharp’s 

federal tax liabilities for the tax periods at issue. 

Case 2:12-mc-00092-JAT Document 6 Filed 08/08/13 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

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 

 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 and by requesting a 

showcause hearing. 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. 

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.”). 

 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 

Case 2:12-mc-00092-JAT Document 6 Filed 08/08/13 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

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). 

 Petitioner has submitted the Declaration of Revenue Officer Jennifer Pardue. 

(Doc. 1-1). The Court finds the declaration satisfies the Powell requirements and 

demonstrates that the United States is entitled to enforcement of the Summons. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Jeffrey G. Sharp appear before the 

United States District Court for the District of Arizona in that branch thereof presided 

over by the Honorable James A. Teilborg, the undersigned, in the Sandra Day O’Connor 

United States Courthouse, located at 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 

85003, 5th Floor, Courtroom No. 503, on Wednesday, September 25, 2013, at 11:30 a.m., 

to show cause why Mr. Sharp should not be compelled to comply with the Internal 

Revenue Service Summons served on him by Revenue Officer Jennifer Pardue as set 

forth in the petition. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order, together with one copy 

each of the Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons (Doc. 1), the 

Declaration of Revenue Officer Jennifer Pardue (Doc. 1-1), the Notice of Availability of 

a United States Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction (Doc. 2), and the Motion for 

Order to Show Cause (Doc. 3), shall be personally served on Mr. Sharp by an official of 

the Internal Revenue Service within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. 

Alternatively, the documents may be served on Mr. Sharp’s attorney within fourteen (14) 

days of the date of this Order if his attorney agrees to accept service on Mr. Sharp’s 

behalf. 

// 

// 

Case 2:12-mc-00092-JAT Document 6 Filed 08/08/13 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of service of copies 

of this Order and the foregoing pleadings, Mr. Sharp shall file with the Clerk of the Court 

and serve on the United States Attorney a written response to the petition. Any defenses 

to the petition or motion Mr. Sharp desires to make in opposition to the petition shall be 

made in this written response and shall be supported by appropriate affidavits. Within 

seven (7) days of service of any written response filed by Mr. Sharp, the United States 

may file an optional reply. Only those issues raised by motion or brought into 

controversy by Mr. Sharp’s responsive pleading shall be considered by the Court, and 

any uncontested allegations in the petition shall be deemed admitted. 

 Dated this 7th day of August, 2013. 

Case 2:12-mc-00092-JAT Document 6 Filed 08/08/13 Page 4 of 4