U.S. v. Kaiser, 04-1349.

Decision Date10 February 2005
Docket NumberNo. 04-1349.,04-1349.
Citation397 F.3d 641
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Philip A. KAISER; Douglas M. Mueller, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Michael A. Gross, argued, St. Louis, MO (David V. Capes, St. Louis, MO, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellants.

Gretchen M. Wolfinger, argued, Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC (Frank P. Cihlar, Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Philip Kaiser and Douglas Mueller appeal from an order enforcing Internal Revenue Service (IRS) summonses seeking tax shelter information. They argue that the district court1 erred in finding that the IRS had a legitimate purpose for its investigation and that the information sought was relevant to such a purpose. We affirm.

After investigating a charitable family limited partnership which two clients of Kaiser and Mueller had used to obtain significant deductions for charitable contributions, IRS Agent Cheryl Kiger concluded that the partnership was an abusive tax shelter. She sought approval from the IRS Lead Development Center for an investigation into whether Kaiser and Mueller were promoting or distributing abusive tax shelters, in violation of I.R.C. § 6700, and whether injunctive relief should be pursued under I.R.C. § 7408. The Center gave its approval on July 23, 2002 and the case was assigned to Agent Kiger, who first recorded work on the matter in late December. In the interim Kiger had completed her investigation of the two clients and issued a report proposing substantial adjustments to their tax liability. In January Mueller informed Agent Kiger that his clients would protest her report. Both Kaiser and Mueller had previously succeeded in obtaining reductions of adjustments proposed by Agent Kiger.

In February 2003 Agent Kiger sent letters notifying Kaiser and Mueller of her investigation. Kaiser requested a meeting with her, and Kiger and three other IRS officials met with appellants about the investigation on March 6, 2003. At the end of the meeting, Agent Kiger issued eight summonses to Kaiser and Mueller. The summonses requested information concerning a number of tax shelters described on a website they maintained, a site she had discovered during her earlier investigation of their clients. The summonses also sought information regarding the purchasers of these tax shelters.

Kaiser and Mueller appeared before Agent Kiger on March 17, 2003. Mueller produced a number of documents but refused to provide the IRS with any materials disclosing client identities, offering redacted versions in their place. IRS counsel thereafter referred the summonses to the Department of Justice, which petitioned the district court for their enforcement.

Applying the standard articulated in United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58, 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964), the district court held that the government had established a prima facie case for enforcement of the summonses. The court concluded that they had been issued for the legitimate purpose of determining whether Kaiser and Mueller had unlawfully promoted abusive tax shelters; that information regarding...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • U.S. v. Norwood, 04-2623.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • August 26, 2005
    ...district court's finding that the IRS had a legitimate purpose for summoning Norwood is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Kaiser, 397 F.3d 641, 643 (8th Cir.2005) (standard of review). Section 7602 of Title 26 authorizes the IRS to summon certain persons and data "[f]or the purpos......
  • Wells Fargo & Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • June 4, 2013
    ...v. LaSalle Nat'l Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 316 (1978). This burden is a "heavy" one. Norwood, 420 F.3d at 893 (citing United States v. Kaiser, 397 F.3d 641, 643 (8th Cir. 2005)). The Court will explain that the IRS has established a legitimate purpose for the issuance of the summonses: verifying ......
  • Bishop v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • January 9, 2023
    ...Bishop Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12, 17. [94] Resp. 12. [95] Id. at 15. [96] See United States v. Kaiser, 308 F.Supp.2d 946, 955 (E.D. Mo. 2004), aff'd, 397 F.3d 641 (8th Cir. 2005) (“Powell explicitly rejected the notion that the Internal Revenue Service was required to demonstrate the existence of prob......
  • Net Promotion, Inc. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • December 3, 2012
    ...assertions of impropriety do not meet the heavy burden required to disprove the legitimacy of the IRS [summons]." United States v. Kaiser, 397 F.3d 641, 643 (8th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Therefore, discovery is not warranted, and Net Promotion's objection is overruled.II. Motion to Di......

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