1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BLACKROCK FINANCIAL 

PARTNERS, LLC, et al. 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 14-mc-51247 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PETITION TO QUASH SUMMONS 

AND DISMISSING PETITION WITH PREJUDICE 

 Paul Mason, a Revenue Agent with the Internal Revenue Service, is 

conducting an investigation of the tax liabilities of Hanna Karcho-Polselli. On July 

9, 2014, Mason issued an administrative summons (the “Summons”) to JP Morgan 

Chase Bank, N.A. (”Chase”). (A copy of the Summons is attached to ECF #4 as 

Ex. A-2, Pg ID 49-51.) Mason issued the Summons pursuant to Section 7602 of 

the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7602. The Summons directed Chase to 

appear before Mason on July 21, 2014, and to provide information sufficient to 

allow Mason to determine whether Chase kept or maintained records of business 

transactions or affairs of Karcho-Polselli. The Summons did not ask for copies of 

any records. Mason did not provide notice of the Summons to Karcho-Polselli. 

2:14-mc-51247-MFL-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/09/14 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 53
 2 

 Chase has identified at least three accounts over which Karcho-Polselli had 

signature authority. Those accounts belong to the Petitioners in this matter: 

Blackrock Financial Partner, LLC; Hotel Mortgage Funding, LLC; and Manhattan 

Financial Advisors, LLC, DBA Quality Inn Near Universal DBA Comfort Inn. 

 Petitioners bring this action under Section 7609 of the Internal Revenue 

Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7609, to quash the Summons. Petitioners allege that this Court 

has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Section 7609 and the First, Fourth, Fifth, 

Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 

In response to the Petition, Respondent United States of America argues that 

this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Section 7609 does not 

authorize Petitioner’s action and because the United States has not otherwise 

waived its sovereign immunity. Petitioners did not file a reply to the United 

States’ response and have made absolutely no effort to refute any of the arguments 

advanced by the United States. The Court agrees with the United States that there 

is no basis for this action and that the Petition should not be quashed. 

 Petitioners are correct that Section 7609 does authorize actions to quash 

administrative summonses. See 26 U.S.C. § 7609(b)(2)(A). However, certain 

types of summonses are expressly excluded from Section 7609, see 26 U.S.C. § 

7609(c)(2), and the Section plainly does not authorize an action to quash the 

classes of summonses that are excluded from its coverage. 

2:14-mc-51247-MFL-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/09/14 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 54
 3 

As relevant here, a summons “issued to determine whether or not records of 

the business transactions or affairs of an identified person have been made or kept” 

is specifically excluded from Section 7609. See 26 U.S.C. § 7609(c)(2)(C). The 

Summons was issued solely to determine whether Chase made or kept records 

related to Karcho-Polselli. Accordingly, the Summons falls outside of Section 

7609, and Petitioners may not proceed under Section 7609. Furthermore, 

Petitioners have cited no authority for the proposition that their Petition is 

authorized by any of the constitutional amendments they have identified. 

 In the alternative, the United States argues that even if the Petition is 

authorized by Section 7609 or is otherwise permitted, the Petition should still be 

denied because Petitioners have failed to show that it is improper or unlawful in 

any way. The Court agrees. For the reasons set forth in detail in the Response of 

the United States (see ECF #4 at 7-11, Pg ID 37-42) – reasons that Petitioners have 

not even attempted to rebut – Petitioners have failed to establish any basis for 

quashing the Summons. The Court also sees no basis on which to grant 

Petitioners’ request for discovery. 

 

2:14-mc-51247-MFL-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/09/14 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 55
 4 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition to Quash 

Summons (ECF #1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: December 9, 2014 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on December 9, 2014, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:14-mc-51247-MFL-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/09/14 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 56