Case Name: MARCON, INC., et al, Petitioners-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-07
Citations: 457 F. App'x 710
Docket Number: No. 10-35464
Parties: MARCON, INC., et al, Petitioners—Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PAEZ, Circuit Judge, and COLLINS, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 457
Pages: 710–711

Head Matter:
MARCON, INC., et al, Petitioners—Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 10-35464.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2011.
Filed Nov. 7, 2011.
Tim A. Tarter, Woolston & Tarter, PC, Phoenix, AZ, Paul L. Westberg, Westberg, McCabe & Collins, Boise, ID, for Petitioners-Appellants.
Michael P. Hatzimichalis, Esquire, Robert William Metzler, Supervisory, Jennifer Marie Rubin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washingon, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PAEZ, Circuit Judge, and COLLINS, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Taxpayers MarCon, Inc. and Elaine Martin appeal the district court's denial of their petition to quash an IRS summons issued to a third-party record keeper in December 2008. We review the denial of a petition to quash an IRS summons for clear error. Fortney v. United States, 59 F.3d 117, 119 (9th Cir.1995). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we AFFIRM.
The IRS met its burden under United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964), to make a prima facie showing that the December summons issued in good faith, and this showing was not refuted by Taxpayers. The December summons was not tainted by an earlier summons because (1) if the IRS already possessed the information requested in the earlier summons, then the earlier summons did not form the basis for the December summons, and (2) the earlier summons properly issued. The IRS wasn't obligated to give notice, and it didn't already possess the requested information. In addition, the December summons did not issue for the improper purpose of furthering a criminal investigation because (1) the matter had not yet been referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution, and (2) there is no evidence in the record that the IRS delayed such a referral in bad faith. See United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 362-63, 109 S.Ct. 1183, 103 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.