United States v. Wooten

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Wooten

5 F. App'x 469

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 7, 2001

DocketNo. 00-3992

StatusPublished

This text of 5 F. App'x 469 (United States v. Wooten) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Wooten, 5 F. App'x 469 (6th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Linda R. Wooten appeals a district court judgment that granted the government’s petition filed pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7602 to enforce two Internal Revenue Service summonses. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

The government filed its petition to enforce IRS summonses requiring Wooten to produce documents pertaining to 1997 tax liability for two trusts for which appellant served as trustee. A magistrate judge issued an order to show cause why an order enforcing the summonses should not issue, and Wooten filed a response to the government’s petition. Following a hearing, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court enforce the summonses, and Wooten filed objections. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and entered a judgment granting enforcement of the IRS summonses. Wooten filed a timely notice of appeal.

On appeal, Wooten contends that: (1) the summonses were not properly served; and (2) the matter is moot because she is no longer a trustee of the trusts. The government essentially responds that the district court’s judgment was proper. Upon consideration, we affirm the district court’s judgment for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation filed May 15, 2000, and in the district court’s June 8, 2000, order adopting the recommendation. The government established a prima facie case for enforcement of the summonses, see United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58, 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964), and Wooten did not meet her burden of showing that enforcement of the IRS summonses would be an abuse of the district court process or that the summonses were issued in bad faith or for purposes of harassment. See United States v. Will, 671 F.2d 963, 966-67 (6th Cir.1982). Further, Wooten’s claims on appeal are meritless.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. See Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Linda R. Wooten appeals a district court judgment that granted the government’s petition filed pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7602 to enforce two Internal Revenue Service summonses. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

The government filed its petition to enforce IRS summonses requiring Wooten to produce documents pertaining to 1997 tax liability for two trusts for which appellant served as trustee. A magistrate judge issued an order to show cause why an order enforcing the summonses should not issue, and Wooten filed a response to the government’s petition. Following a hearing, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court enforce the summonses, and Wooten filed objections. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and entered a judgment granting enforcement of the IRS summonses. Wooten filed a timely notice of appeal.

On appeal, Wooten contends that: (1) the summonses were not properly served; and (2) the matter is moot because she is no longer a trustee of the trusts. The government essentially responds that the district court’s judgment was proper. Upon consideration, we affirm the district court’s judgment for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation filed May 15, 2000, and in the district court’s June 8, 2000, order adopting the recommendation. The government established a prima facie case for enforcement of the summonses, see United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58, 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964), and Wooten did not meet her burden of showing that enforcement of the IRS summonses would be an abuse of the district court process or that the summonses were issued in bad faith or for purposes of harassment. See United States v. Will, 671 F.2d 963, 966-67 (6th Cir.1982). Further, Wooten’s claims on appeal are meritless.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. See Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 F. App'x 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-wooten-ca6-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack