Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00241/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00241-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Caroline R. Etherton
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 The Summons called for Etherton to produce the following categories of documents: (a)

copies of deeds to properties in which she had an interest; (b) bank statements and canceled checks for

March, April and May of 2004; (c) statements for all investment, savings, and retirement accounts in

which she had an interest; (d) personal income and expense information necessary to complete a Form

433-A; and (e) pay off statements for loans and mortgages for which she was responsible. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 05-0241-WS-C

 )

CAROLINE R. ETHERTON, )

 )

 )

Respondent. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the United States of America’s Petition to Enforce Internal

Revenue Service Summons (doc. 1). This Petition was filed pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7402(b), which

confers jurisdiction upon federal district courts to compel taxpayers’ compliance with summonses

issued by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).

The Petition reflects that the IRS is investigating the collection of the tax liabilities of respondent

Caroline R. Etherton (“Etherton”) for the 1998 tax year. (Breeland Decl., ¶¶ 2, 8.) Pursuant to that

investigation, the IRS issued a Summons to Etherton on May 27, 2004, directing her to appear before

an IRS representative on June 18, 2004, to provide testimony and to produce certain enumerated

documentation. (Exh. 2.)1 The return of service reflects that Etherton was personally served with the

Summons on May 27, 2004. (Id.) Etherton did not appear in response to the Summons. (Breeland

Decl., ¶ 5.) The IRS contacted Etherton on at least two subsequent occasions in an attempt to secure

her compliance, to no avail. In particular, on December 21, 2004, the IRS sent Etherton a letter

warning her that legal proceedings could be initiated if she did not comply with the Summons on a

Case 1:05-cv-00241-WS-C Document 7 Filed 05/20/05 Page 1 of 5
2 Although she protests that all or nearly all communications with the IRS regarding the

Summons have been handled by her husband on her behalf, the fact remains that Etherton (and not her

husband) was named in the Summons and is named as Respondent herein. Thus, it is she who is

responsible for ensuring that there are no communication breakdowns in her dealings with the IRS

relative to that Summons. Etherton can neither plead ignorance nor evade accountability for the acts

and omissions of her agent/spouse in dealing with the IRS in this matter.

-2-

designated appearance date of January 6, 2005. (Crump Decl., ¶ 2.) Etherton once again failed to

appear. As a result, on April 5, 2005, Assistant United States Attorney Charles Baer sent a letter to

Etherton advising her that if she did not contact the IRS by April 20, 2005 to arrange for compliance,

the United States would file suit to compel her to do so. (Baer Decl., ¶ 2.) Etherton did not comply

with the Summons, and did not even acknowledge the April 5 correspondence, prior to the Petition

being filed on April 22, 2005.

On April 25, 2005, the undersigned entered a Show Cause Order (doc. 3) finding that the

United States had made a prima facie showing to compel compliance and directing Etherton to show

cause why the IRS Summons should not be enforced. In her pro se response, Etherton offers three

distinct arguments in her own defense. First, she questions the need for an investigation into her 1998

tax liability at all because she maintains that her tax liability for that year has previously been established. 

Second, she apparently attributes her failure to comply with the Summons to a series of “failures of

communication” between her husband, Rayford Etherton (who is not named as a target or recipient of

the Summons), and the IRS. Third, she challenges the relevance of certain documentation

encompassed by the Summons, including specifically the bank records from 2004.

None of Etherton’s arguments are compelling. Her objection to the investigation overlooks the

fact that the IRS’s stated purpose is to investigate collection of her 1998 tax liability, not to determine

such liability. As such, the mere fact that her 1998 tax liability has already been established does not

reasonably call into question whether the IRS investigation has been brought for a proper purpose, and

cannot excuse her from compliance with the Summons. As for the purported “failures of

communication,” the record before the Court reflects that Etherton herself must shoulder much of the

blame for any such miscommunication.2 While she complains that she did not receive the December

Case 1:05-cv-00241-WS-C Document 7 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 5
3 Etherton does not specify the circumstances of those communication failures. 

However, evidence presented by the United States shows that on May 2, 2005, AUSA Baer advised

Etherton via e-mail that she must appear before the IRS on either May 4 or May 13, 2005. (Exh. 6.) 

The evidence further shows that on May 2, 2005, Etherton, by and through her husband, responded by

e-mail to AUSA Baer that “We will make arrangements for the May 13 date.” (Exh. 7.) 

Notwithstanding this e-mail exchange, Etherton did not appear on May 13. (Amended Reply of United

States (doc. 6), at 1.) The record offers no inkling as to why Etherton neglected to appear. Given the

parties’ unambiguous agreement, it is unclear how Etherton’s noncompliance on May 13 could possibly

be attributed to “failures of communication.”

-3-

21, 2004 “last chance” letter, Etherton does not deny that she received the Summons in May 2004, that

she received a voice mail message in early 2005 advising her of the IRS’s ongoing efforts to enforce

that Summons, or that she received AUSA Baer’s “last chance” letter dated April 5, 2005. Clearly,

she has had ample notice, ample opportunity to comply with the Summons, and ample opportunity to

avert this litigation during the last 12 months. Yet she has still failed to comply. 

Etherton acknowledges that she did not respond to AUSA Baer’s “last chance” letter until after

the stated deadline had expired and this Petition had been filed. Nonetheless, she explains that goodfaith attempts were made to comply with the Summons prior to the May 16 deadline for responding the

Show Cause Order in this action, but that “further failures of communication” frustrated those efforts.3

Such vague excuses about communication problems do not absolve Etherton from compliance with the

Summons, particularly in the face of evidence of her chronic pattern of noncompliance with a lawful IRS

Summons for nearly a year after its issuance.

Finally, Etherton’s undeveloped, conclusory objection to the relevance of the 2004 bank

statements is not well-taken, as it misapprehends the purpose of the IRS inquiry. As stated supra, the

IRS is not trying to ascertain her 1998 tax liability, but is rather endeavoring to collect on that liability. 

Given that the present investigation concerns collection of outstanding tax liabilities, Etherton’s financial

activities during the three month period immediately preceding issuance of the Summons appear

manifestly relevant in identifying potential collection sources. To the extent that Etherton believes

otherwise, it is incumbent on her to voice that objection in the form of a cogent legal argument,

presented in the context of a motion for protective order or similar pleading. This Court will not

Case 1:05-cv-00241-WS-C Document 7 Filed 05/20/05 Page 3 of 5
4 A similar result obtains to Etherton’s request that she be excused from appearing in

person before the IRS and that she instead be permitted to respond to the IRS inquiry in affidavit form. 

She proffers neither legal authority that might authorize such a modification to the Summons nor any

recitation of circumstances that might reasonably render it inappropriate for her to appear in person. 

As such, the Court declines to judicially amend the Summons in the manner that she suggests.

-4-

formulate Etherton’s legal arguments for her, nor will it curtail the scope of the Summons based on a

half-hearted, unsupported objection that is not presented via an appropriate motion.4

In short, Etherton has failed to make any showing that might militate against enforcement of the

Summons against her. The Court does not doubt that Etherton’s dealings with the IRS have been

longstanding and unpleasant for her. However, neither the length of the IRS investigation nor any

acrimony attendant thereto allows her to disregard an IRS Summons that has been issued for a

legitimate purpose, where the inquiry is relevant to that purpose, the information sought is not already in

IRS custody, the requisite administrative steps have been followed, and there has been no criminal

referral. See, e.g., United States v. Insurance Consultants of Knox, Inc., 187 F.3d 755, 759 (7th

Cir. 1999) (“To obtain enforcement of a summons, the government must show that: (1) the investigation

is being conducted for a legitimate purpose; (2) the information sought is relevant to the investigation

and (3) not already in the government's possession; and (4) the administrative steps required by the

Internal Revenue Code have been followed.”). All of those criteria are satisfied here. Nor has

Etherton made any showing sufficient to meet her heavy burden of establishing that the IRS is acting in

bad faith or that enforcement of the Summons would be an abuse of the Court’s process. See, e.g.,

Kondik v. United States, 81 F.3d 655, 656 (6th Cir. 1996) (once Government has established prima

facie case, taxpayer bears a heavy burden of proving “that enforcement of the summonses would be an

abuse of the court’s process”); Fortney v. United States, 59 F.3d 117, 120 (9th Cir. 1995) (“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.”) (citations omitted).

For all of the foregoing reasons, the United States’ Petition to Enforce Summons is granted. 

Respondent Caroline R. Etherton is hereby ordered to comply with the Summons in full at a mutually

Case 1:05-cv-00241-WS-C Document 7 Filed 05/20/05 Page 4 of 5
5 Etherton’s requests for a reasonable amount of time to produce responsive documents,

and to seek legal representation, are duly noted. The Court finds that the compliance time frame set

forth herein is more than adequate to allow Etherton to marshal the requested documents and to search

for counsel, should she wish to do so. This is particularly true given that Etherton has had actual

knowledge of the Summons for nearly a year, during which time she was fully able to assemble the

relevant documents and retain counsel if she wished. Etherton’s failure to avail herself of that

opportunity in a reasonably diligent manner does not justify further prolonging the Summons

enforcement proceedings at this time.

-5-

agreeable time and place, by no later than June 20, 2005.

5

 The United States is directed to submit a

written status report on or before June 20, 2005, so that the Court may enter further orders or close

this file, as appropriate.

DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of May, 2005.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00241-WS-C Document 7 Filed 05/20/05 Page 5 of 5