United States of America v. Salter

Filing 10

Order granting 1 Petition to Enforce IRS Summons filed by United States of America as set out. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 8/27/2012. (copy mailed to Salter at Atmore address) (cmj)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. CHARLES A. SALTER, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MISC. ACTION NO. 12-00013-KD-M ORDER The matter came before the Court on this date for a show cause hearing regarding the Government’s “Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons” and memorandum in support. (Docs. 1, 2). The hearing was attended by counsel for the Government, Charles Baer; Respondent Salter failed to appear at the designated time for the hearing (noon) but appeared later and as such, the hearing was reconvened. Due to Respondent Salter’s failure to appear at the designated time for the hearing, the Court initially found him to be in contempt of court1 and ordered the issuance of a warrant to enable the U.S. Marshal to arrest Respondent Salter and to keep him incarcerated until such time as he complies with the Court’s Orders. See 26 U.S.C. § 7604(b); Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Wellington Precious Metals, Inc., 950 F.2d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1992) United States v. Money, 744 F.2d 779, 780-781 (11th Cir. 1984). However, due to Respondent Salter’s subsequent appearance, the hearing was reconvened. Pursuant to the filing of the Declaration of Revenue Officer Ditto (Doc. 2-1 (Aff. 1 The district court has the inherent power to enforce compliance with its lawful orders through civil contempt. Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966); United States v. Barnette, 129 F.3d 1179, 1182 n. 7 (11th Cir. 1997); Mercer v. Mitchell, 908 F.2d 763, 766-767 (11th Cir. 1990). Accord Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Watkins, 943 F.2d 1297, 1304 (11th Cir. 1991). 1 Ditto)), the Petitioner made a prima facie showing that: 1) the investigation is being conducted for a legitimate purpose; 2) the inquiries may be relevant to that purpose; 3) the information sought is not already within the Commissioner’s possession; and 4) the administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code have been substantially followed. See, e.g., U.S. v. Morse, 532 F.3d 1130, 1132 (11th Cir. 2008). oppose enforcement of the summons. Id. Thus, the burden shifted to Respondent Salter to The Respondent has not met this burden. In fact, in response to the Petition, Respondent Salter does not object to, or oppose, the enforcement of the summons. Additionally, the Court is satisfied that Respondent Salter has shown good cause for his failure to appear at the July 12, 2012 hearing, explaining that he moved from the Mobile, Alabama address of record and did not receive notice of the proceeding. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Court’s contempt finding is VACATED and the previously issued arrest warrant is REVOKED. Moreover, upon consideration, the Court finds that the Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief such that pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7604, it is ORDERED that the Petition to Enforce IRS Summons is GRANTED and ENFORCED such that Respondent Charles A. Salter shall appear in person IMMEDIATELY before IRS Revenue Officer Ditto, or any other officer designed by the IRS, at a location designated by the Petitioner, at which time he shall comply fully with the Summons and produce books, papers, records, or other requested information, or give testimony in accordance with the Summons. The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of enforcing its Orders and imposing appropriate sanctions against Respondent Salter if he fails to comply with the terms of 2 this Order. DONE and ORDERED this the 27th day of August 2012. /s/ Kristi K. DuBose KRISTI K. DuBOSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?