USA v. Newton
ORDER: 1. The Recommended Disposition of MJ Wier 17 is ADOPTED in FULL and INCORPORATED herein by reference. 2. The United States' Petition 1 is GRANTED. 3. Respondent Mark Newton shall respond fully to the IRS's summons on or before 6/3/16. 4. The respondent is advised that failure to comply may subject him to potential penalties, including contempt of Court. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 05/09/2016.(LC)cc: COR, Newton by US Mail
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
MARK NEWTON, as Sole Member of
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL LLC,
Civil Action No. 5: 16-019-DCR
*** *** *** ***
The United States, on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), filed this action
on January 9, 2016, seeking to obtain production of certain testimony and documents related
to an ongoing tax investigation of Southern Industrial LLC for 2011, 2012, and 2013.
[Record No. 1] As outlined in government’s Petition, IRS summonses were issued on May
13, 2015, directing Respondent Mark Newton to appear before Revenue Officer Tiffany
Stockwell on June 8, 2015, to respond. However, Newton failed to appear and failed to
produce the requested information and documents. As part of the relief sought, the United
States asked that an order be issued by this Court, directing Newton to show cause why he
should not fully comply with and obey the summonses. Additionally, the United States has
sought an order directing Newton, as the sole member of Southern Industrial LLC, to obey
the aforementioned summonses.
Following service of a Show Cause Order by United States Magistrate Judge Robert
E. Wier, a hearing was held in this matter on April 22, 2016. [Record No. 16] On the same
date, Magistrate Judge Wier issued a Recommended Disposition in this matter. [Record No.
Neither the United States nor Respondent Newton have filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Disposition.
In relevant part, Magistrate Judge Wier found and concluded as follows:
The United States is properly proceeding under the administrative enforcement
mechanics of the Internal Revenue Code and this Court has both subject matter and personal
jurisdiction. 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402, 7602, and 7604.
The verified materials produced by the United States establish the
government’s prima facie right to enforcement of the two summonses in issue. See United
States v. Powell, 85 S.Ct. 248, 255 (1964); United States v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 440
F.3d 729, 733 (6th Cir. 2006). More specifically, the two affidavits establish: (1) a legitimate
purpose for the information sought; (2) relevance; (3) that the IRS does not already have the
information being sought; and (4) compliance with the Internal Revenue Code’s procedural
requirements. As a result, the burden properly shifts to the respondent to “either disprove the
elements of a prima facie case or ‘demonstrate that judicial enforcement of the summons
would otherwise constitute an abuse of the court’s process.’” Id. at 733 (quoting United
States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028, 1034 (5th Cir. 1981)).
The mode of administrative service over the respondent was valid and all
processes complied with the Internal Revenue Code.
There is no parallel criminal investigation ongoing.
Respondent Mark Newton failed to establish any reason that the Court should
not enforce the summonses.
Therefore, being sufficiently advised, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
The Recommended Disposition of United States Magistrate Judge Robert E.
Wier [Record No. 17] is ADOPTED in FULL and INCORPORATED herein by reference.
The United States’ Petition [Record No. 1] is GRANTED.
Respondent Mark Newton, as sole member of Southern Industrial LLC, shall
respond fully to the Internal Revenue Service’s Summons on or before June 3, 2016. More
specifically, Newton must appear as directed, provide testimony, produce all books, papers,
records, and other data as required and called for by the terms of the summonses before
Revenue Officer Tiffany Stockwell, or other proper officer or employee of the IRS, at such
time and place as may be determined by Revenue Officer Tiffany Stockwell, or any other
proper officer or employee of the IRS.
The Respondent is advised that failure to comply with the IRS Summons and
this Order may subject him to potential penalties, including contempt of court.
This 9th day of May, 2016.
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?