Source: http://patriotnetwork.info/henderson_case.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:37:17+00:00

Document:
This matter is before the court on a petition to quash certain Internal Revenue summonses.
The internal Revenue Service ( IRS ) issued five (5) summonses between March 15, 1991 and June 7, 1991, in the course of an investigation of James M. Henderson and Mary Henderson (collectively the "Henderson's ). The IRS was attempting to determine the correct federal income tax liability of the Henderson's for the years of 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and1989, and to inquire into any offense connected with the administration or enforcement of the internal revenue laws. The summonses were directed to and served upon various financial institutions.' The Henderson were given proper notice of each of the summonses.
The Henderson's filed a petition' to quash the summonses. In this petition, the Henderson's assert that the summonses were not properly attested that they were true copies of the original when they were served. The United States has filed a motion to dismiss the petition to quash and a petition to enforce the summonses.
It is not disputed that the IRS has the authority to issue summonses for these purposes.
See 26 U.S.C. §7602(a) & (b).
The summonses were to (1) Palmetto Bank, served March 15, 1991; (2) Heritage Federal S & L, served March 15, 1991; (3) C&S Bank, served March 21, 1991; (4) Interstate Johnson Lane Corp., served May 17, 1991; and (5) NCNB Bank, served June 7, 1991.
The petition to quash was originally filed on March 22, 1991 seeking to quash the summonses directed to Heritage Federal S & L and Palmetto Bank. An amended petition was filed on April 18, 1991 seeking in addition to quash the summons to C & S Bank. A second amended petition was filed on June 7, 1991 seeking in addition to quash the summons to Interstate Johnson Lane. A third amended petition was filed on June 25, 1991 seeking additionally to quash the summons to NCNB Bank.
The summonses were issued by agent Suzanne Bell. Agent Bell, in her affidavit, stated that the books, records, papers, and other data sought are either not in the possession of the IRS or are not readily accessible without undue administrative burden and expense. She further stated that the information sought is necessary and relevant to the investigation and that no referral to the Department of Justice for criminal proceedings has been made. Bell also stated that all administrative procedures had been followed.
To enforce the summonses, the United States need only show that the summonses were issued for a legitimate purpose, that the data sought may be relevant to that legitimate purpose, that the data is not already in the government's possession, and that the administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code were followed. United Stales v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964); United States v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 313-14 (1978); Alphin vs. United States 809 F 2d 236 (4th Cir. 1987). The IRS may establish its prima facie case by an affidavit of the investigating agent averring the four elements from Powell. Alphin v. United States, 809 F.2d 236 (4th Cir. 1987); In re Newton, 718 F.2d 1015, 1019 (11th Cir. 1983); United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir. 1981). The affidavit of agent Bell establishes a prima facie case for enforcement. Since a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the Henderson's to show that the summonses should not be enforced.
5 This case is not reported in the Federal Supplement. It also may be located at 1991 WL 34445 and 1991 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1329.
copy. "[A]n attested' copy of a document is one which has been examined and compared with the original, with a certification or memorandum of its correctness, signed by the person who examined it. Black's Law Dictionary 117 (5th ed. 1979). Therefore, an attested copy must have a written and signed certification that it is a correct copy.
The copies of the summonses that are part of the record in this case have no written and signed certification that they are true copies of the original on them or attached to them. The IRS does not contest the fact that the summonses that were served did not have such a written and signed certification The IRS contends that the statute does not require such a certification. This court disagrees. This court finds that to be an attested copy, the summons must have a written and signed certification or memorandum that the copy is a true and correct copy of the original. Therefore, the IRS failed to follow the administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Cede.
The Henderson's have shown that the IRS failed to establish an element required under Powell for the enforcement of a summons. The district court can deny enforcement of a summons if it finds that the IRS has fallen short of establishing the four elements from Powell. United States v. Michaud, 907 F.2d 750, 752 (7th Cir. l990)(en banc); Cf. Hintze v. Internal Revenue Service, 879 F.2d 121 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. White, 853 F.2d 107 (2d Cir. 1988); United States v. John G. Mutschler & Assoc.. Inc., 734 F.2d 363, 367 (8th Cir. 1984).
The IRS contends that any failure to comply with the administrative procedures was a minor flaw which should not preclude enforcement of the summonses.' This court does not agree. Congress specifically provided that a summons issued by the IRS "shall be served by the Secretary, by an attested copy . . . ." 26 U.S.C. ~7603 (emphasis added). The word shall in a statute is generally used to show that a certain action is mandatory.' Therefore, the service of an attested copy in mandated by the Internal Revenue Code.
It seems clear that a valid purpose for this mandate is to assure the person receiving the summons that what he received was in fact a true copy of the original summons. The failure to serve an "attested copy deprives the person receiving the summons of this assurance which Congress expressly granted. This court finds that under the facts of this case, the failure to follow the requirement of the Internal Revenue Code to serve an attested copy precludes the enforcement of the summonses.
440 (8th Cir. 1985)(Failure to adhere to IRS internal operating order did not preclude enforcement of a summons).
Black's Law Dictionary 1233 (5th ed. 1979); and 39 Words and Phrases, "Shall-In Statutes 122-30 (1953).
That the remaining three summons should be quashed becasue the IRS failed to serve an attested copy of the summonses. For this same reason, the court finds that the IRS is not entitled to enforcement of any summones.
ORDERED that the petition for enforcement is denied.

References: §7602
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.