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)

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