Miller v. U.S., No. 97-3881

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore CUMMINGS, ROVNER, and DIANE P. WOOD; PER CURIAM
Citation150 F.3d 770
Parties-5414, 98-2 USTC P 50,596 Marvin D. MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 97-3881
Decision Date28 July 1998

Page 770

150 F.3d 770
82 A.F.T.R.2d 98-5414, 98-2 USTC P 50,596
Marvin D. MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 97-3881.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Submitted July 13, 1998.
Decided July 28, 1998.

Page 771

Marvin D. Miller, Knox, IN, pro se.

Andrew B. Baker, Jr., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Dyer, IN, Charles E. Brookhart, Kenneth W. Rosenberg, Department of Justice, Tax Division, Appellate Section, Gerald H. Parshall, Jr., Department of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee.

Before CUMMINGS, ROVNER, and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Marvin Miller filed a motion pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7609 to quash two summonses that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had issued to two Indiana banks for records relating to Miller's financial dealings. In response, the government replied with an answer denying Miller's charges, and a counterclaim for enforcement of the summonses. The district court denied Miller's motion and enforced the summonses. However, the government did not attach to its counterclaim evidence sufficient to meet its prima facie burden for enforcement. Therefore, we vacate the order of the district court enforcing the summonses, and remand for further proceedings.

As an initial matter, we note that the parties dispute the standard of review. Miller claims that the standard is de novo; the government claims that the standard is the more deferential clear error standard. As the questions involved in the determination of whether to enforce a summons are questions of fact, we review for clear error. See 2121 Arlington Heights Corp. v. IRS, 109 F.3d 1221, 1226 (7th Cir.1997); David H. Tedder & Assoc. v. United States, 77 F.3d 1166, 1168, 1169 (9th Cir.1996).

Marvin Miller did not file a tax return for tax years 1991 to 1995. The IRS subsequently began an investigation into Miller's activities to determine whether Miller was required to file a return for those years. On April 8, 1997, the IRS sent a summons to Key Bank requesting records relating to Miller, Insurance Consultants of Knox, Inc. (ICKI), a company at which Miller was an officer and shareholder, and any other entities in which either Miller or the corporation had a business interest. Special Agent Arment sent an unattested copy of the summons to Miller in order to provide the statutorily required notice of the summons. The IRS attempted to serve ICKI by sending a copy of the summons via certified mail, but the letter was returned undeliverable on April 15. On April 16, 1997, the IRS sent a summons to Indiana Federal Bank for records relating to Miller, and any other entities in which Miller had a business interest. As

Page 772

with the first summons, the IRS sent Miller an unattested copy of the second summons.

On April 24,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Muratore v. Department of Treasury, No. 03-MC-6015L.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • April 15, 2004
    ...with federal tax laws." Upton, 104 F.3d at 545 (quoting Bisceglia, 420 U.S. at 145, 95 S.Ct. 915); see also Miller v. United States, 150 F.3d 770, 772 (7th Cir.1998) ("the IRS is entitled to broad latitude in issuing summonses to enforce the tax "As a necessary incident to the investigatory......
  • U.S. v. Bernhoft, Case No. 08-C-0515.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • October 28, 2009
    ...a "minimal burden" on the agency. 2121 Arlington Heights Corp. v. I.R.S., 109 F.3d 1221, 1224 (7th Cir.1997); Miller v. United States, 150 F.3d 770, 772 (7th Cir.1998). The government could "typically make [a prima facie] showing through the affidavit of the revenue agent conducting the aud......
  • U.S. v. Bdo Seidman, No. 02-3914.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 23, 2003
    ...purpose. See United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58, Page 810 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964); Miller v. United States, 150 F.3d 770, 772 (7th Cir.1998). Once the Government makes a prima facie showing of good faith, the burden shifts to the respondent to show that the enforcement ......
  • Khan v. U.S., No. 08-1743.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • November 20, 2008
    ...Internal Revenue Code grants the IRS "broad power" to issue summonses to investigate violations of the tax code. Miller v. United States, 150 F.3d 770, 772 (7th Cir.1998). The statute, which was amended by Congress in 1982, authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to examine books and recor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Muratore v. Department of Treasury, No. 03-MC-6015L.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • April 15, 2004
    ...with federal tax laws." Upton, 104 F.3d at 545 (quoting Bisceglia, 420 U.S. at 145, 95 S.Ct. 915); see also Miller v. United States, 150 F.3d 770, 772 (7th Cir.1998) ("the IRS is entitled to broad latitude in issuing summonses to enforce the tax "As a necessary incident to the investigatory......
  • U.S. v. Bernhoft, Case No. 08-C-0515.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • October 28, 2009
    ...a "minimal burden" on the agency. 2121 Arlington Heights Corp. v. I.R.S., 109 F.3d 1221, 1224 (7th Cir.1997); Miller v. United States, 150 F.3d 770, 772 (7th Cir.1998). The government could "typically make [a prima facie] showing through the affidavit of the revenue agent conducting the aud......
  • U.S. v. Bdo Seidman, No. 02-3914.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 23, 2003
    ...purpose. See United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58, Page 810 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964); Miller v. United States, 150 F.3d 770, 772 (7th Cir.1998). Once the Government makes a prima facie showing of good faith, the burden shifts to the respondent to show that the enforcement ......
  • Khan v. U.S., No. 08-1743.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • November 20, 2008
    ...Internal Revenue Code grants the IRS "broad power" to issue summonses to investigate violations of the tax code. Miller v. United States, 150 F.3d 770, 772 (7th Cir.1998). The statute, which was amended by Congress in 1982, authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to examine books and recor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT