Opinion ID: 204030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The summonses and prior proceedings

Text: In June 2007, the IRS issued a set of administrative summonses to Massachusetts resident Michael Hartigan (Hartigan), an attorney, directing him to appear before IRS Revenue Agent Larry Weinger to testify and produce for examination documents and information relating to Derringer, Knight, Portfolio, Sugarloaf and Warwick. A few days later, Hartigan received a second summons from the IRS, directing him to appear before IRS Agent Kimberlee Loren to testify and produce documents regarding Rogers. The first set was served on Hartigan because he claimed losses on his joint income tax return based on his wife's interest in Derringer and Knight. [5] The second was based on his relationship with Rogers, as the IRS believed that Hartigan, in addition to receiving fees from participants, also assisted Rogers in organizing, managing and selling interests in the various entities. [6] The petitioners timely filed a motion to quash the summonses, claiming that the IRS was engaging in a nationwide pattern of harassment. [7] The government moved to deny the motion to quash and for enforcement of the summonses. After a hearing on the petitioners' motion for an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge denied both the motion for a hearing and the motion to quash, while simultaneously recommending the enforcement of the summonses. The district court adopted the report and recommendation. This appeal followed.