USA v. Belcik
Filing
15
ORDER overruling 12 , 13 , and 14 --objections; adopting in part 11 --report and recommendation; denying 5 --motion to dismiss; denying 6 --motion to vacate; denying 13 --motion to intervene and discharge the magistrate; granting in part 1 --motion to enforce IRS summons; finding that Belcik must pay the United States' cost in prosecuting this action; directing the Clerk to CLOSE the case. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 5/7/2015. (BK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
USA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 8:15-mc-2-T-23MAP
JOSEPH A. BELCIK,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
ORDER
The United States petitions (Doc. 1) to enforce against Joseph A. Belcik “an
Internal Revenue Service summons” issued under 26 U.S.C. § 7402. The magistrate
judge directed (Doc. 2) Belcik “to show cause why he should not be compelled to
comply with the . . . summons.” Belcik moves (Doc. 5) “to dismiss the petition.”
Also, arguing that “the Magistrate never had jurisdiction to sign any order,” Belcik
moves (Doc. 6) “to vacate the Magistrate[’]s order to show cause.” The magistrate
judge recommends (Doc. 11) granting the petition and denying Belcik’s two motions.
Belcik moves (Doc. 13) “for the district court Steven D. Merryday to [i]ntervene and
discharge this Magistrate.”
Under Section 7604(b), “[w]henever any person summoned under
[Section 7602] neglects or refuses to obey such summons,” after an attachment
against the person and a hearing, a magistrate judge may “make such order . . . to
enforce obedience to the requirements of the summons.” Also, under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), a district judge may “designate a magistrate judge to conduct
hearings . . . and to submit to a [district judge] proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition.”
Recognizing Belcik’s numerous objections to the magistrate judge’s authority
to grant or to deny the United States’ petition, the magistrate judge, instead of
exercising his authority to “enforce obedience to the requirements of the summons,”
recommends granting the petition:
[T]he government has [met] the burden to prove that: (1) the IRS
investigation is being conducted for a proper purpose; (2) the inquiry is
relevant to that purpose; (3) the information sought is not already within
the Commissioner’s possession; and (4) the Commissioner has followed
the appropriate administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue
Code. United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57–58 (1964) . . . .
(Doc. 11 at 3)
Belcik’s objections (Docs. 12, 13, 14) to the report and recommendation are
OVERRULED, and the report and recommendation (Doc. 11) is ADOPTED. For
the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, Belcik’s motion (Doc. 5) “to dismiss the
petition” and motion (Doc. 6) “to vacate the magistrate[’]s order to show cause” are
DENIED, and the United States’ petition (Doc. 1) to enforce “an Internal Revenue
Service summons” is GRANTED. In accord with the United States’ request:
Respondent [must] appear before Revenue Agent John Clark, or any
other designated officer of the Internal Revenue Service, at [a] time and
place . . . fixed by Revenue Agent Clark or his designee, to give
testimony and produce for examination and copying the books, records,
papers, and other data as demanded by the [July 1, 2014] summons . . . .
-2-
(Doc. 1 at 3–4) Also, Belcik must pay the United States’ cost in prosecuting this
action. Belcik’s motion (Doc. 13) “for the district court Steven D. Merryday to
[i]ntervene and discharge this Magistrate” is DENIED. The clerk is directed to close
the case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on May 7, 2015.
-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?