Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

CHARLES LODHOLM AND DIXIE LODHOLM, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES ET AL., Respondents

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR SUMMARY ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNAL REVENUE SUMMONSES AND DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

FRANKLIN BURGESS, District Judge

The United States asserts that the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") is currently investigating petitioners' federal tax liabilities. To this end, the IRS agent assigned to this investigation served petitioners and their financial institutions with IRS administrative summonses. Neither petitioners nor their respective banks have complied with the summonses. Instead petitioners filed this case in an attempt to quash the summonses and ask the Court to direct the IRS "to cease and desist from all future harassment." The United States opposes petitioners' efforts to quash the Lodholm and bank summonses, and asserts that they should be summarily enforced.

The United States is correct in asserting that 26 U.S.C. § 7609(b)(2)(A) does not authorize petitioners to bring proceedings to quash IRS summonses that are issued to themselves. Accordingly, the Court finds that the portion of petitioners' complaint seeking to quash the Lodholm summonses should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).

To enforce the IRS summonses the United State bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of good faith. United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964). The Court, after careful review of the record finds that the good faith standard has been met. Petitioners offer no logical or reasoned argument for denying summary enforcement of both the Lodholm and bank summonses. Accordingly, the United States' request for summary enforcement of both the Lodholm and bank summonses.

Finally, the Court finds that petitioners' motion for summary judgment is without merit. Petitioners reference to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) is insufficient to satisfy the rule. To proceed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), petitioners are required to produce some evidence in an attempt to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial. Absolutely no attempt was made in this case. Thus, summary judgment is denied.

ACCORDINGLY;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) Respondent's Motion for Summary Enforcement of IRS Summonses (Dkt. #27) is GRANTED;
(2) Petitioners' request to quash bank summonses and to direct the IRS employees to "cease and desist from all future harassment" is DENIED;
(3) Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #33) is DENIED; and
(4) The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to counsel for Respondents and to Petitioners at their last known address.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

LODHOLM v. U.S
(Jul 2, 2003)