UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-mc-06-PB

Calvin F. Dunn

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This case involves a petition to enforce an Internal Revenue

Service (IRS) Summons brought pursuant to the provisions of

26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a). 

The summons was issued to taxpayer Calvin Dunn seeking to

have him testify and produce all documents and records in his

possession or control concerning his assets and liabilities

during the period January 1, 2006, to October 15, 2006. The

summons directed taxpayer to appear on October 31, 2006, at

9:00 a.m. Taxpayer appeared but did not comply with the summons. 

The records sought are not in the possession of the IRS, all

administrative steps have been taken, and the taxpayer's

testimony and records are necessary to determine tax liability. 

(Exhibit A attached to Petition to Enforce). 

The taxpayer personally appeared pro se in response to the

Order to Show Cause and filed no responsive pleading of any type. 

Case 1:07-mc-00006-PB Document 7 Filed 04/16/07 Page 1 of 3
DISCUSSION

In order to enforce its summons the IRS must show: (1) that

the summons was issued for a legitimate purpose; (2) that the

information sought may be relevant to that purpose; (3) that the

information is not already in the IRS' possession; and (4) that

the administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code

for issuance and service of the summons have been followed. 

United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964); United States

v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 313-314 (1978). The IRS

generally makes this showing a prima facie case on these four

elements through the affidavit or declaration of the agent. 

United States v. Sancetta, M.D., P.C., 788 F.2d 67, 71 (2nd Cir.

1986); United States v. Garden State National Bank, 607 F.2d 61,

68 (3rd Cir. 1979); United States v. Will, 671 F.2d 963 (6th Cir.

1982). 

The burden is then upon the taxpayer to show that the

summons is invalid or enforcement would be an abuse of the

Court's process. United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. at 58; United

States v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 U.S. at 316. The respondent

must prove specific facts to support a legally sufficient

rebuttal or defense. See United States v. KIS, 658 F.2d 526,

536-539 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. denied sub nom., Salkin v. United

States, 455 U.S. 1018 (1982). 

Case 1:07-mc-00006-PB Document 7 Filed 04/16/07 Page 2 of 3
The taxpayer has not disputed any of the government's prima

facie case. The government has met its burden. The defendant

has not met his burden.

It is recommended that the taxpayer, Calvin F. Dunn, be

ordered to obey the summons and that he be ordered to appear on

June 4, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. at 719 N. Main Street, Laconia, New

Hampshire, before Sonia J. Cryan, to give testimony and produce

all books and records in his possession or control required and

called for by the terms of the summons of October 17, 2006.

It is further recommended that the government be awarded its

costs. 

Any objections to this report and recommendation must be

filed within ten days of receipt of this notice. Failure to file

objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal

the district court's order. See Unauthorized Practice of Law

Committee v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992); United

States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986).

/s/ James R. Muirhead 

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

April 16, 2007

cc: T. David Plourde, Esq.

Calvin F. Dunn, pro se

Case 1:07-mc-00006-PB Document 7 Filed 04/16/07 Page 3 of 3