Boudreau et al v. United States
Filing
4
Opinion and Order: The Governments Motion to Dismiss Petition to Quash Summons 2 is granted with respect to summonses issued to Bank of America NT & SA and Sterling Savings Bank. The government's Counter-Petition to Enforce Summonses 2 is Granted with Respect to summons issued to Barrett Business Services. Signed on February 7, 2008 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (cp)
Boudreau et al v. United States
Doc. 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
CAROLYN J. BOUDREAU,
Petitioner,
VS
Misc. No. 07-7015-AA
.
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
AIKEM,
Judge :
Petitioner filed a petition pursuant to 26 U.S.C. S 7609(b) (2) seeking an order to quash an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Summonses issued to two financial institutions and one company. The government moves to dismiss this action or, alternatively, to enforce the summonses. The government's motion is granted.
The government argues that the petitioner should be dismissed
for failing to effectuate proper service. Puxsuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i), service on the United States is not
perfected until:
1) a copy of the summons and complaint is
1
- OPINION AND ORDER
Dockets.Justia.com
delivered to sent by registered or certified mail to the United States Attorney for the district in which the action is brought;
and 2)
a copy of the summons and complaint is sent by registered
or
certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States in Washington D.C. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 ( i ) ( l ) . Here, petitioner failed
to send a copy of the summons and complaint to the Attorney General
in Washington D.C.
,
and service is not complete.
Petitioner did
not respond to the government's motion to dismiss, and I am unable to determine whether good cause exists to excuse her failure to perfect service. Regardless, this court lack jurisdiction over the petition to quash with respect to summonses issued to Bank of America NT
&
SA
and Sterling Savings Bank, because they are not located in the District of Oregon.
26 U.S.C.
S 7609 (h); Fortnev v. United
States, 59 F.3d 117, 119 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, I find that the summons issued to Barsett Business Service is enforceable. The IRS may issue a summons for production of information relevant to "determining the liability of any person for internal revenue tax."
26 U.S.C. S 7602 (a).
To establish a prima facie
case for enforcement of a summons, the government must show that:
1) the summons is for a legitimate purpose; 2) the material being
sought is relevant to the investigation; 3) the information is not already in the government's possession; and 4) the administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code have been followed.
2
- OPINION
AND ORDER
United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964); United States v.
Saunders,
951 F.2d
1065, 1067
(9th Cir.
1991).
Assertions by affidavit of the investigating agent that the requirements are satisfied are sufficient to make the prima facie
case. United States v. Dvnavac, Inc., 6 F.3d 1407, 1414 (9th Cir.
1993).
In other words, a sworn declaration may satisfy the
government's "minimal" burden of showing that the summons was issued for a proper purpose, that the materials are relevant to the investigation, that the materials are not in the possession of the government, and that all administrative steps have been taken.
a
There is no requirement that the IRS make an assessment or show that petitioner actually has a tax liability before issuing a
summons, because the IRS may issue a sumons to investigate
possible tax liability.
at 1067.
&g
26 U.S.C. 5 7602; Saunders, 951 F.2d
Here, the declaration of Vickie Schneider indicates that the
summons were issued to determine whether petitioner has tax
obligations for the years 2003 and 2005, that the documents sought are relevant to the government's investigation, that the documents
sought are not in the government's possession, and that all
necessary administrative steps were government has met its burden. Once the government meets its showing, the burden shifts to the taxpayer to show that the summons was issued for an improper 3 taken. Therefore, the
-
OPINION
AND ORDER
purpose or was otherwise deficient. Petitioner fails to do either. owe tax liability because
Dvnavac, 6 F.3d at 1414.
Petitioner argues that she cannot her husband,
now
deceased,
was
responsible for preparing and paying income taxes for 2003 and
2005.
Petitioner also argues that she does not possess the
documents requested by the government, However, as explained above, the government is investigating whether tax liabilities are owed for 2003 and 2005, and enforcement
of the surnmons will assist in making that determination. Further,
if
petitioner
does
not
possess
relevant
documents,
it
is
appropriate for the government to seek them from other parties who could be in possession of relevant documents. Accordingly, the
summons issued to Barrett Business Service is enforceable.
CONCLUSION
The government's motion to dismiss Petition to Quash Summons (doc. 2 ) is GRANTED with respect to summonses issued to Bank of America NT
&
SA and Sterling Savings Bank.
The government's
Counterpetition to Enforce Summonses (doc. 2) is GRANTED with respect to summons issued to Barrett Business Service. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this
7
day of February, 2008.
United States District Court Judge
4
- OPINION AND ORDER
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?