Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01072/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01072-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
First Commonwealth Bank
Not Party
Anthony A. Masciantonio
Appellant
David McKinzie
Not Party
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1072

___________

ANTHONY A. MASCIANTONIO

doing business as THERMOALL REMODELING,

Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FIRST COMMONWEALTH BANK; 

DAVID MCKINZIE, IRS Special Agent

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Misc. Action No. 3-14-mc-00035)

District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 14, 2016

Before: FUENTES, VANASKIE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 22, 2016)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-1072 Document: 003112271515 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2016
2

Anthony Masciantonio is the sole proprietor of Thermoall Remodeling. In July 

2014, he filed in the District Court a petition to quash two Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

summonses. The IRS had issued those summonses in connection with an investigation 

into Masciantonio’s tax liabilities for his business.1 Masciantonio also sought a 

protective order requesting that the Government be further prohibited from obtaining 

discovery related to his business.2 The Government subsequently filed a motion for 

summary enforcement and denial of Masciantonio’s petition to quash.

In a December 17, 2015 order, the District Court denied Masciantonio’s petition to 

quash the summonses as well as the other relief that he sought. The order further granted 

the Government’s motion for summary enforcement. Masciantonio appeals. 

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7609(h), 

and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review questions of fact for 

clear error and questions of law de novo. See United States v. Ins. Consultants of Knox, 

Inc., 187 F.3d 755, 759 (7th Cir. 1999).

 

1 The IRS issued one of the summonses to First Commonwealth Bank. The other was 

issued to Masciantonio and Thermoall Remodeling seeking business records for the 

period between January 2009 and December 2012.

2 Masciantonio additionally requested that the District Court order an in camera review of 

a confidential report in the possession of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax 

Administration (TIGTA). Masciantonio contended that the TIGTA report contained 

exculpatory material and was subject to production based upon the Supreme Court’s 

ruling in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

Case: 15-1072 Document: 003112271515 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2016
3

Section 7602(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) authorizes the IRS to issue 

a summons “[f]or the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a 

return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal 

revenue tax . . . , or collecting any such liability.” 26 U.S.C. § 7602(a). To establish a 

prima facie case for the legality of a summons, the IRS 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 IRC have 

been followed. United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964). Once the IRS has 

made its prima facie case, the taxpayer bears the burden of disproving any one of the four 

Powell elements or otherwise demonstrating that “enforcement of the summons will 

result in an abuse of the court’s process.” United States v. Rockwell Int’l, 897 F.2d 1255, 

1262 (3d Cir. 1990).

For the reasons identified by the District Court, we agree that the IRS has satisfied 

the Powell factors. Briefly, the IRS provided a sworn declaration from an Agent 

involved with Masciantonio’s case which supports the conclusion that the summonses 

were issued for a legitimate purpose and that proper procedure was followed. Among 

other things, the Agent declared that the summonses had been issued to determine the 

correctness of Masciantonio’s tax returns for the years 2009 thought 2012 in order to 

ascertain whether he had committed any offense under the Internal Revenue Code, which 

Case: 15-1072 Document: 003112271515 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/22/2016
4

is a legitimate purpose under 28 U.S.C. § 7602(a). Further, all administrative steps 

required for the issuance of the summons had been followed.

Masciantonio has not set forth any information suggesting that the IRS acted in 

bad faith or that it lacked the authority to issue either summons. Indeed, many of the 

arguments that he raised in support of his petition to quash (and on appeal here) were 

previously rejected by this Court in connection with Masciantonio’s appeal of the denial 

of his petition to quash an earlier IRS summons. See Masciantonio v. United States, 528 

F. App’x 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2013) (not precedential).3

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Masciantonio’s 

motion to refund the filing fee for this appeal is denied. See Porter v. Dep’t of the 

Treasury, 564 F.3d 176, 179 (3d Cir. 2009).

 

3 The District Court also correctly denied Masciantonio’s request for in camera review of 

the TIGTA report. The District Court correctly observed that with few exceptions Brady

applies to criminal proceedings, see NLRB v. Nueva Eng’g, Inc., 761 F.2d 961, 969 (4th 

Cir. 1985), and that a summons enforcement proceeding is a civil proceeding. Here, the 

Government is not prosecuting Masciantonio. Rather, it is conducting an investigation to 

determine whether he has complied with applicable tax laws. The District Court also 

correctly denied Masciantonio’s request for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(c) because he did not satisfy the criteria for obtaining such relief. 

Case: 15-1072 Document: 003112271515 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/22/2016