Rippl v. Internal Revenue Service et al
Memorandum, Opinion, and Order that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition to quash the summons. The petition is hereby DISMISSED. Judge John R. Adams on 6/27/16. (K,C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Bart H. Rippl,
Internal Revenue Service, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:16MC29
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
Pending before the Court is Bart H. Rippl’s petition to quash a third party summons issued
by the Internal Revenue Service. For the reasons that follow, the petition is DISMISSED.
In his petition, Rippl seeks to quash a collection summons issued to James Oswald. Rippl
claims that the summons was not issued for a legitimate purpose and instead is improperly being
used to further a criminal investigation. Rippl raised the same argument in 1:16MC18 with respect
to another collection summons issued by the IRS. The Court dismissed that matter noting as
A colleague on this Court has previously discussed the authority of a district court to pass on
such an argument:
26 U.S.C. § 7609 contains special provisions regarding IRS summonses issued to
third-party record keepers (like TRW). § 7609(b)(2)(A) provides that “any person
who is entitled to notice of a summons [to a third-party record keeper] under [§
7609(a) ] shall have the right to begin a proceeding to quash such summons.” Thus,
the question whether plaintiff had the right to move to quash the IRS summons
depends upon whether the plaintiff was entitled to notice of the summons under §
Generally, § 7609(a) requires the IRS to provide notice to the person whose records
have been summoned. However, no notice need be provided if the summons is
issued to aid the collection of a tax liability which was previously assessed or
adjudged. § 7609(c)(2)(B)(ii). Since the IRS need not provide notice of a summons
issued in aid of collection, no person has a right to move to quash such a summons.
“Essentially, a District Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a petition to quash a
collection summons.” Church of Human Potential, Inc. v. Vorsky, 636 F.Supp. 93,
Bancsi v. Pennington, 812 F. Supp. 759, 760 (N.D. Ohio 1992). This Court agrees with the
reasoning set forth in Bancsi. As this was a collections summons, Rippl was not entitled to notice
of its issuance. As a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain his petition to quash the
summons. The petition is hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 27, 2016
/s/ John R. Adams
JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?