Opinion ID: 3185659
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review “for abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision to order—or not—the questioning of IRS agents.” Clarke, 573 U.S. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 2368. A district court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law, and we must ensure the trial court applied the correct legal standards. Id. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 2368 (citing Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, ___, 131 S. Ct. 2205, 2217 (2011)). The district court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Bok v. Mut. Assurance, Inc., 119 F.3d 927, 929 (11th Cir. 1997). “An order enforcing an IRS summons will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous.” United States v. Medlin, 986 F.2d 463, 466 (11th Cir. 1993). 3 The district court adopted its reasoning from Clarke III to its final order in the Julien case. Order Enforcing Summons, United States v. Julien, No. 12-80190 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 6, 2015), ECF No. 17. 8 Case: 15-11663 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 Page: 9 of 16