Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-02099/USCOURTS-ca10-07-02099-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Bowers
Appellant
Internal Revenue
Appellee
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is

not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 13, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

JOSEPH BOWERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-2099

(D.C. No. 06-MC-29-MCA)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, PORFILIO, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is attempting to investigate Joseph

Bowers’ ability to pay his delinquent taxes. He was summoned by the IRS to

testify and produce certain financial documents from the 2005 calendar year, but

Mr. Bowers refused to comply with the summons, purportedly because it

contained a misprint. After an initial show cause hearing, see 26 U.S.C.

Appellate Case: 07-2099 Document: 010190439 Date Filed: 12/13/2007 Page: 1 
-2-

§§ 7402(b) and 7604, the district court directed the IRS to reissue the summons

without typographical errors. The IRS accordingly issued Mr. Bowers a second

summons, which updated the relevant period to the 2006 calendar year. This

time, Mr. Bowers appeared before an IRS agent but refused to provide any of the

requested testimony or documents. When the IRS petitioned the district court to

enforce this second summons, the court held another show cause hearing,

concluded that the second summons was enforceable, and ordered Mr. Bowers to

produce the requested testimony and documents.

Mr. Bowers now appeals the district court’s enforcement order, arguing that

the court was without jurisdiction to enforce the second summons and incorrectly

concluded that he made an ineffectual, blanket assertion of his Fifth Amendment

privilege against self-incrimination to the requested information, see United

States v. Schmidt, 816 F.2d 1477, 1481-82 (10th Cir. 1987).

We have reviewed the district court’s enforcement order, the relevant legal

authority, the parties’ materials, and the record on appeal, and we perceive no

error. The district court clearly had jurisdiction to enforce the second summons.

Consequently, we affirm the district court for the same reasons articulated in its

order dated March 22, 2007.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 07-2099 Document: 010190439 Date Filed: 12/13/2007 Page: 2