Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-mc-03297/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-mc-03297-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barry S. Ford
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

) 1:06mc3297-MHT

BARRY S. FORD, ) (WO)

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This action to enforce an Internal Revenue Service

(“IRS”) summons is before the court on respondent Barry

S. Ford’s motion to dismiss. Jurisdiction in this court

is proper under 26 U.S.C. § 7604(a). For the reasons

that follow, the motion will be denied.

The IRS, in order to enforce a summons, "must show

that the investigation will be conducted pursuant to a

legitimate purpose, that the inquiry may be relevant to

the purpose, that the information sought is not already

within the [IRS's] possession, and that the

administrative steps required by the Code have been

Case 1:06-mc-03297-MHT Document 12 Filed 08/25/06 Page 1 of 11
1. Exhibit 1 to the petition to enforce IRS Summons

(Doc. No. 1), declaration of Brenda Cauley; Exhibit 2 to

the petition to enforce IRS Summons (Doc. No. 1),

affidavit of Robert A. Hoeker.

2

followed." United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58

(1964). This burden is minimal; it is met "merely by

presenting the sworn affidavit of the agent who issued

the summons attesting to these facts.” La Mura v. United

States, 765 F.2d 974, 979 (11th Cir. 1985). 

This burden has been met by the affidavits presented

in this case.1

 Where, as here, the IRS presents such

affidavits, the "burden shifts to the party contesting

the summons to disprove one of the four elements of the

government's prima facie showing or convince the court

that enforcement of the summons would constitute an abuse

of the court's process." Id. at 979-80. Such an abuse

occurs if “the summons ha[s] been issued for an improper

purpose, such as to harass the taxpayer or to put

pressure on him to settle a collateral dispute, or for

any other purpose reflecting on the good faith of the

particular investigation." Powell, 379 U.S. at 58. "The

Case 1:06-mc-03297-MHT Document 12 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 11
3

burden on the contesting party is a heavy one, requiring

allegation of specific facts and introduction of

evidence." United States v. Leventhal, 961 F.2d 936, 940

(11th Cir. 1992) (internal citations and quotations

omitted).

Ford argues that the IRS cannot enforce a summons

against him for three reasons: First, the service does

not have the authority to take action against him because

it has failed to amend its records; second, the officer

who issued the summons does not have to authority to

issue such a summons; and, third, the summons cannot

issue other than to those involved in activities

involving alcohol, tobacco or firearms. None of these

arguments has merit. 

I. Failure to Amend Records

Ford contends that the IRS cannot issue a summons

against him because it has failed to correct records

concerning him that are incorrect. His argument proceeds

Case 1:06-mc-03297-MHT Document 12 Filed 08/25/06 Page 3 of 11
4

on two grounds: first, that the IRS must have accurate

records in order to enforce the summons; and, second,

that the IRS is in violation of regulations and statutory

commands, and this court should compel, correction of the

records.

Ford’s arguments fail at the outset because he has

produced literally no evidence that the records are, in

fact, inaccurate. He has produced many documents

purporting to explain the way that the system works, and

has produced many documents that the IRS maintained on

him, but nothing other than his unsworn assertions that

the information contained in the files is not accurate.

He has failed to carry his burden, even if his arguments

had any legal merit, because he has not cited “specific

facts and introduc[ed] evidence." Leventhal, 961 F.2d

936, 940. 

More importantly, Ford’s argument that the records

are incorrect and, thus, the summons cannot be enforced

rests on a misapprehension of the law. Specifically,

Case 1:06-mc-03297-MHT Document 12 Filed 08/25/06 Page 4 of 11
5

Ford argues that the IRS must have “proof” that he is

involved in a small business activity in order for a

summons to be enforced, and that the purported inaccuracy

of the records shows that the IRS does not have such

proof. Ford is incorrect. “[T]he commissioner need not

meet any standard of probable cause to obtain enforcement

of his summons.” Powell, 379 U.S. 48. The Supreme Court

has explained that:

“Although a more stringent

interpretation is possible, one which

would require some showing of cause

for suspecting fraud, we reject such

an interpretation because it might

seriously hamper the Commissioner in

carrying out investigations he thinks

warranted, forcing him to litigate

and prosecute appeals on the very

subject which he desires to

investigate, and because the

legislative history of § 7605(b)

indicates that no severe restriction

was intended.” 

Id. at 52-3. 

Rather, the court requires an affirmative showing of

the Powell factors recited above. The IRS, as noted

above, has met its burden in this respect through its

Case 1:06-mc-03297-MHT Document 12 Filed 08/25/06 Page 5 of 11
2. Those sections, part of the Privacy Act of 1974,

provide for access to and correction of records. They

provide that, 

“each agency that maintains a system of

records shall--

...

(2) permit the individual to request

amendment of a record pertaining to him

and--

(A) not later than 10 days (excluding

Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public

holidays) after the date of receipt of

such request, acknowledge in writing

such receipt; and

(continued...)

6

officers’ declaration and affidavit. Nothing in this

proceeding rests on the accuracy of the records

respondent cites. There is no evidence that the

purported inaccuracy of the IRS’s records shows an abuse

of this court’s process. Those records are thus simply

not relevant to this process, and the purported

inaccuracy of the records therefore has no bearing on

whether the summons will be enforced. 

Ford also argues that the IRS has violated 5 U.S.C.

§§ 552a(d)(2)(A), 552a(d)(2)(B) and 552a(d)(3)2

, by

Case 1:06-mc-03297-MHT Document 12 Filed 08/25/06 Page 6 of 11
2. (...continued)

(B) promptly, either--

(i) make any correction of any portion

thereof which the individual believes is

not accurate, relevant, timely, or

complete; or

(ii) inform the individual of its

refusal to amend the record in

accordance with his request, the reason

for the refusal, the procedures

established by the agency for the

individual to request a review of that

refusal by the head of the agency or an

officer designated by the head of the

agency, and the name and business

address of that official;

(3) permit the individual who disagrees

with the refusal of the agency to amend

his record to request a review of such

refusal, and not later than 30 days

(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal

public holidays) from the date on which

the individual requests such review,

complete such review and make a final

determination unless, for good cause

shown, the head of the agency extends

such 30-day period; and if, after his

review, the reviewing official also

refuses to amend the record in

accordance with the request, permit the

individual to file with the agency a

concise statement setting forth the

reasons for his disagreement with the

(continued...)

7

Case 1:06-mc-03297-MHT Document 12 Filed 08/25/06 Page 7 of 11
2. (...continued)

refusal of the agency, and notify the

individual of the provisions for

judicial review of the reviewing

official's determination under

subsection (g)(1)(A) of this section

....” 

5 U.S.C. § 552a(d).

8

failing to correct the records, and that this court

should compel correction. Even if this were the proper

juncture at which, or action in which, to make this

argument, this argument fails. 26 U.S.C. § 7852(e) does

not permit the application of those sections in this

action. Section 7852(e)provides that, “[t]he provisions

of subsections (d)(2) [and] (3) ... of section 552a of

title 5, United States Code, shall not be applied,

directly or indirectly, to the determination of the

existence or possible existence of liability (or the

amount thereof) of any person for any tax, penalty,

interest, fine, forfeiture....” 26 U.S.C. 7852(e). Ford

would require this court do just that; enforcement of the

Case 1:06-mc-03297-MHT Document 12 Filed 08/25/06 Page 8 of 11
3. Exhibit 3 to the IRS’s Response in Opposition to

the Motion to dismiss (Doc. 11), Delegation Order.

9

summons directly affects the determination of liability

under Title 26. 

II. Lack of Authority of a

Small Business/Self-Employed Business

Officer to Issue Summons

Ford argues that the Small Business/ Self-Employed

Business Division of the IRS had no authority to issue a

summons, because he is neither a small business nor selfemployed. This argument fails, first, because he

presents no evidence that this is so, and, second,

because the Small Business/Self-Employed Business

Division has been issued authority to issue summonses

without regard to whether they concern small or selfemployed business.3

 The Secretary of the Treasury has the

statutory authority to issue summonses, 26 U.S.C.

§ 7602(a)(2), and statute provides for delegation of that

authority to the Commissioner of the IRS, 26 U.S.C.

§§ 7701(a)(11)(B), 7701(a)(12)(A). The Commissioner is

Case 1:06-mc-03297-MHT Document 12 Filed 08/25/06 Page 9 of 11
4. Id. 

5. Ford’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9).

10

authorized to issues summonses by regulation of the

Treasury. 26 C.F.R. § 301.7602. The Commissioner, in

turn, has delegated that authority with the IRS’s

Delegation Order 4.4

 Thus, it is of no consequence that

the summons was issued by an officer of the Small

Business/Self-Employed Business division.

III. The IRS’s Lack of Authority

Ford argues that the IRS lacks the authority to

investigate him because “the authority and implementing

regulations” that he understands the government to rely

on “rest not in Title 26 Income Taxes but in Title 27

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Taxes.”5

 This argument has

been repeatedly, and correctly, rejected. See, e.g.,

United States v. Strett, 791 F.Supp. 563, 568 (D.Md.

1992); United States v. Plemons, 2005 WL 3817683 (E.D.

Tenn. 2005). As those courts correctly point out with

Case 1:06-mc-03297-MHT Document 12 Filed 08/25/06 Page 10 of 11
respect to 26 U.S.C. § 7602(a), which provides for the

issuance of IRS summonses, “The plain language of 26

U.S.C. § 7602(a) allows the IRS to summon ‘any person’ to

determine his or her tax liability. The statute, by its

very language, imposes no restrictions that limit the

scope of the summons authority to persons involved in

alcohol, tobacco, and firearms activities.” Plemons,

2005 WL 3817683, *2. Further, the regulatory authority,

which Ford has apparently overlooked, can be found in

Treasury regulation 26 C.F.R. § 301.7602, which

authorizes the issuance of summonses. These regulations

similarly apply to the examination of the records of “any

person for any internal revenue tax.”

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the

respondent Barry S. Ford’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 9)

is denied.

DONE, this the 25th day of August, 2006.

_____________________________ /s/ Myron H. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:06-mc-03297-MHT Document 12 Filed 08/25/06 Page 11 of 11