Court Opinion

ID: 2964628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:28:33.751343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:56.054829
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1558

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Petitioner, Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 RICHARD M. KERRIGAN,

                                Respondent, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1559

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Petitioner, Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 MILDRED E. KERRIGAN,

                                Respondent, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                        Selya, Cyr, and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                                ______________

                                 ____________________

            Richard M. Kerrigan on brief pro se.
            ___________________
            Loretta C. Argrett,  Assistant Attorney General, Donald K.  Stern,
            __________________                               ________________
        United  States   Attorney,  Charles  E.  Brookhart   and  Theodore  M.
                                    ______________________        ____________
        Doolittle, Attorneys,  Tax Division,  Department of Justice,  on brief
        _________
        for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                    April 28, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Richard and Mildred  Kerrigan appeal pro se
                 __________                                        ___ __

            from district court orders enforcing Internal Revenue Service

            ("IRS") summonses.  We affirm.

                 The Kerrigans  argue that the summonses  were issued for

            improper  purposes  and that  the  testimony  and other  data

            sought were already in  the possession of the IRS.   Contrary

            to the Kerrigans' suggestion, the fact of having been audited

            for six and  a half  years is not,  by itself, sufficient  to

            raise  an inference  of bad  faith.   Moreover, we  think the

            Kerrigans failed  to create a  substantial question regarding

            their allegation that the IRS already possessed everything it

            sought.   With the exception of third party bank records, the

            Kerrigans  provided  no  specific   details  about  what  was

            provided, by whom, and when.  

                 Nor do we think the fact that the revenue agent admitted

            to having bank records shows bad faith.  Cf. United States v.
                                                     ___ _____________

            Groos Nat'l Bank  of San Antonio, 661  F.2d 36, 37 (5th  Cir.
            ________________________________

            Unit A Oct. 1981) (per curiam) (rejecting argument       that

            because the IRS already had some of the information it sought
                                        ____

            in its  possession  the summonses  were  not issued  in  good

            faith).   Rather,  at most,  it is a  reason to  restrict the

            scope  of the enforcement order.  See United States v. Davis,
                                              ___ _____________    _____

            636  F.2d 1028, 1037 (5th Cir.  Unit A Feb. 1981); cf. United
                                                               ___ ______

            States v.  Medlin, 986 F.2d  463 (11th Cir.  1993) (upholding
            ______     ______

            enforcement order which  granted partial relief  by modifying

                                         -3-

            the summons).   Here, the district  court limited enforcement

            of the  summons so as not to require the Kerrigans to provide

            third party records already produced.

                 The  Kerrigans' remaining contentions are either waived,

            because they  are unaccompanied  by some effort  at developed

            argumentation,  or are  meritless.   We note,  in particular,

            that the district court did not err in declining to entertain

            the  Kerrigans'  counterclaim or  in denying  their discovery

            requests.    Enforcement  proceedings  are  designed   to  be

            summary.  See Donaldson  v. United States, 400 U.S.  517, 529
                      ___ _________     _____________

            (1971);  United States v. Gertner, 65 F.3d 963, 966 (1st Cir.
                     _____________    _______

            1995).   Although the  Federal Rules  of Civil  Procedure are

            generally applicable  to such  proceedings, courts  may limit

            their application  when to apply them  literally would impair

            the summary  nature of the proceedings.   See Fed. R. Civ. P.
                                                      ___

            81(a)(3); Alphin  v. United  States, 809  F.2d 236, 238  (4th
                      ______     ______________

            Cir. 1987).   The Kerrigans' counterclaims  (assuming for the

            sake  of argument  that they  are viable) would  have greatly

            prolonged  the  proceedings,  and   there  was  no  abuse  of

            discretion  in  declining to  entertain  them.   And,  having

            concluded at  the hearing that the  Kerrigans' allegations of

            bad  faith largely  boiled down  to the  fact that  they have

            "disagreements with the IRS" (a conclusion we do not think is

            clearly erroneous), the court did not abuse its discretion in

            failing to allow the discovery requests.

                                         -4-

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -5-