Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-mc-00040/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-mc-00040-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patricia A. Martin
Petitioner
Arthur H. Martin
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR H. MARTIN, and

PATRICIA A. MARTIN,

Petitioners, No. MISC. S-06-0040 DFL GGH PS

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER

Respondent. 

 /

On April 24, 2006, petitioners, who proceed in pro se, moved to quash three third

party summonses issued April 4, 2006 by the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7609. Respondent United States opposed the motion and sought

summary enforcement of the summonses. On September 7, 2006, petitioners withdrew their

motion to quash. The hearing on this matter, scheduled for September 14, 2006, was therefore

vacated and the court issues this order on respondent’s enforcement motion.

The Ninth Circuit has summarized the well-established requirements for

enforcement of an IRS summons:

To obtain enforcement of a summons, the IRS must first establish

its ‘good faith’ by showing that the summons: (1) is issued for a

legitimate purpose; (2) seeks information relevant to that purpose; 

(3) seeks information that is not already within the IRS’

possession; and (4) satisfies all administrative steps required by

Case 2:06-mc-00040-DFL-GGH Document 13 Filed 09/12/06 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

2

the United States Code. United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48,

57-58, 85 S.Ct. 248, 254-55 (1964). The government’s burden is

“a slight one” and typically is satisfied by the introduction of the

sworn statement of the revenue agent who issued the summons

declaring that the Powell requirements have been met. United

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

States v. Gilleran, 992 F.2d 232, 233 (9th Cir.1993). Once a prima

facie case is made a ‘heavy’ burden is placed on the taxpayer to

show an ‘abuse of process’ or ‘the lack of institutional good faith.’ 

Dynavac, 6 F.3d at 1414.

Fortney v. United States, 59 F.3d 117, 119 (9th Cir.1995); accord United States v. Abrahams,

905 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1990); Ponsford v. United States, 771 F.2d 1305, 1307, 1308 (9th

Cir.1985); Liberty Financial Services v. United States, 778 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1985).

Respondent has filed a memorandum in support of enforcement and a declaration

of Revenue Agent Kirsten Richardson which includes exhibits of the contested summonses and

certificates of service. The summonses were served upon the First Bank of California, Placer

Savings Bank, and U.S. Bank National Association, to obtain information relevant to petitioners’

tax liability for years 2000, 2001 and 2002. Agent Richardson states that the information sought

by the summonses – including petitioners’ signature cards, bank statements, deposits, credit and

debit memos, canceled checks, and wire transactions – is relevant to the IRS’ investigation. 

These documents were not in the possession of the IRS when the summonses were issued and

have yet to be obtained by other means. No Justice Department criminal referral has been made

with respect to petitioners, which would otherwise preclude enforcement (26 U.S.C. § 7602(d)). 

The court finds the instant investigation statutorily authorized the summonses

relevant to the investigation. 26 U.S.C. §§ 7602(a), (b), 7609. The information sought is not in

the possession of the IRS. Service of the summons was made pursuant to the requirements of 26

U.S.C. § 7603 and notice was given to petitioners as required by 26 U.S.C. § 7609(b). The IRS

has met its burden of demonstrating the summonses were issued for a legitimate purpose, remain

essential to its investigation, and should therefore be enforced. Even prior to withdrawing their

motion to quash, petitioners presented no basis for precluding enforcement of the summonses;

Case 2:06-mc-00040-DFL-GGH Document 13 Filed 09/12/06 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

3

they do not allege abuse of process or bad faith on the part of the IRS, nor that the summonses

were procedurally or administratively deficient. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that respondent’s motion, filed June 23, 2006, for

summary enforcement of the IRS summonses issued April 4, 2006, upon First Bank of

California, Placer Savings Bank, and U.S. Bank National Association, is GRANTED.

DATED: 9/11/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOW6: Martin0040.IRS

Case 2:06-mc-00040-DFL-GGH Document 13 Filed 09/12/06 Page 3 of 3