United States of America v. Sharp
Filing
6
ORDER: re 3 MOTION for Order to Show Cause - that Respondent Jeffrey G. Sharp appear before the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in that branch thereof presided over by the Honorable James A. Teilborg, the undersigned , in the Sandra Day O'Connor United States Courthouse, located at 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, 5th Floor, Courtroom No. 503, on Wednesday, September 25, 2013, at 11:30 a.m., to show cause why Mr. Sharp should not be compel led to comply with the Internal Revenue Service Summons served on him by Revenue Officer Jennifer Pardue as set forth in the petition. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of service of copies of this Order and the foregoing pleadings, Mr. Sharp shall file with the Clerk of the Court and serve on the United States Attorney a written response to the petition. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 8/7/2013. (See PDF for full details.)(KMG)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
United States of America,
Petitioner,
10
11
12
13
No. MC 12-0092-PHX-JAT
ORDER
v.
Jeffrey G. Sharp,
Respondent.
14
15
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s request that the Court enter an order
16
setting a hearing for Respondent Jeffrey G. Sharp (“Mr. Sharp”) to show cause, if any,
17
why he should not comply with and obey the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Summons
18
issued to him (Doc. 3).
19
On April 11, 2012, Jennifer Pardue, an IRS revenue officer issued an IRS
20
Summons to Mr. Sharp to testify and to produce for examination books, records, papers,
21
and other data as described in the Summons. On April 12, 2012, the Summons was
22
served at Mr. Sharp’s last and usual place of abode. The Summons directed Mr. Sharp to
23
appear before an officer of the IRS on April 27, 2012. On April 27th, Mr. Sharp did not
24
appear and comply with the Summons and his refusal to comply with the Summons
25
continues to the present. The testimony and information sought by the Summons are not
26
already in the possession of the IRS. The IRS contends that it is necessary to obtain the
27
testimony and to examine the information sought by the Summons to collect Mr. Sharp’s
28
federal tax liabilities for the tax periods at issue.
1
District courts have jurisdiction to order compliance with a summons. 26 U.S.C.
2
§§ 7402(b), 7604(a); United States v. Derr, 968 F.2d 943, 945 (9th Cir. 1992). Because
3
an IRS summons is not self-enforcing, the United States achieves compliance with a
4
summons by seeking judicial enforcement of the summons and by requesting a
5
showcause hearing. See, e.g., Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S. 440, 445-46 (1964); United
6
States v. Gilleran, 992 F.2d 232, 233 (9th Cir. 1993). “Summons enforcement
7
proceedings should be summary in nature and discovery should be limited.” United
8
States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 369 (1989) (citation, quote marks, and brackets omitted);
9
see also Derr, 968 F.2d at 945 (“Enforcement of a summons is generally a summary
10
proceeding to which a taxpayer has few defenses.”).
11
To obtain enforcement of an IRS summons, the United States must show that (1)
12
the investigation will be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose; (2) the inquiry may
13
be relevant to the purpose; (3) the information sought is not already within the
14
Commissioner’s possession; and (4) the administrative steps required by the Internal
15
Revenue Code have been followed. United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964).
16
Typically, the United States makes this showing by submitting affidavits stating that the
17
summons was issued in compliance with the four Powell factors. Ponsford v. United
18
States, 771 F.2d 1305, 1308 (9th Cir. 1985). To establish judicial enforcement, the
19
United States’ “showing need only be minimal,” and “[a]ssertions by affidavit of the
20
investigating agent that the requirements are satisfied are sufficient to make the prima
21
facie case.” Liberty Financial Services v. United States, 778 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.
22
1985); see also United States v. Dynavac, Inc., 6 F.3d 1407, 1414 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The
23
government’s burden is a slight one, and may be satisfied by a declaration from the
24
investigating agent that the Powell requirements have been met.”).
25
Once the United States has established the Powell requirements, “those opposing
26
enforcement of a summons . . . bear the burden to disprove the actual existence of a valid
27
civil tax determination or collection purpose by the [IRS]. . . . Without doubt, this burden
28
is a heavy one.” United States v. LaSalle Nat’l Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 316 (1978); see also
-2-
1
Lidas, Inc. v. United States, 238 F.3d 1076, 1082 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he taxpayer bears a
2
heavy burden to rebut the presumption of good faith. . .”) (citation and quote marks
3
omitted); United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc)
4
(taxpayer’s burden in opposing enforcement of IRS summons requires production of
5
specific facts and evidence).
Petitioner has submitted the Declaration of Revenue Officer Jennifer Pardue.
6
7
(Doc. 1-1).
The Court finds the declaration satisfies the Powell requirements and
8
demonstrates that the United States is entitled to enforcement of the Summons.
Based on the foregoing,
9
10
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Jeffrey G. Sharp appear before the
11
United States District Court for the District of Arizona in that branch thereof presided
12
over by the Honorable James A. Teilborg, the undersigned, in the Sandra Day O’Connor
13
United States Courthouse, located at 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona
14
85003, 5th Floor, Courtroom No. 503, on Wednesday, September 25, 2013, at 11:30 a.m.,
15
to show cause why Mr. Sharp should not be compelled to comply with the Internal
16
Revenue Service Summons served on him by Revenue Officer Jennifer Pardue as set
17
forth in the petition.
18
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order, together with one copy
19
each of the Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons (Doc. 1), the
20
Declaration of Revenue Officer Jennifer Pardue (Doc. 1-1), the Notice of Availability of
21
a United States Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction (Doc. 2), and the Motion for
22
Order to Show Cause (Doc. 3), shall be personally served on Mr. Sharp by an official of
23
the Internal Revenue Service within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.
24
Alternatively, the documents may be served on Mr. Sharp’s attorney within fourteen (14)
25
days of the date of this Order if his attorney agrees to accept service on Mr. Sharp’s
26
behalf.
27
//
28
//
-3-
1
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of service of copies
2
of this Order and the foregoing pleadings, Mr. Sharp shall file with the Clerk of the Court
3
and serve on the United States Attorney a written response to the petition. Any defenses
4
to the petition or motion Mr. Sharp desires to make in opposition to the petition shall be
5
made in this written response and shall be supported by appropriate affidavits. Within
6
seven (7) days of service of any written response filed by Mr. Sharp, the United States
7
may file an optional reply.
8
controversy by Mr. Sharp’s responsive pleading shall be considered by the Court, and
9
any uncontested allegations in the petition shall be deemed admitted.
10
Only those issues raised by motion or brought into
Dated this 7th day of August, 2013.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
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?